similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours

I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Pawel Wodnicki Sent: den 12 november 2012 07:03 To: llvmdev; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours We have branched

> I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. Unfortunately, this requires manual grafting, since git-svn does really bad job here. I'm going to work on this tonight. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Should be there. Please let me know if there are any problems with them On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. > Unfortunately, this requires manual grafting, since git-svn does > really bad job here. > > I'm going

On 1/11/2013 7:15 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > Removed from trunk. Pawel can decide if its necessary to update the > tarballs. > > Thanks for the report! Apparently git-svn does not delete removed > directories. PTX directories still exists in release_32 branch and RELEASE_32/final. But they are all empty so PTX can not be build. > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:36

Hello, Just a quick reminder that the November 29th (10p.m. PST) is the end of Phase 1 testing and Release Candidate 2 (RC2) deadline. After RC2 deadline, LLVM-Clang 3.2 release will be considered feature complete and no new functionality can be added. With 2 days left please use following guidelines when initiating request for patches before RC2 deadline. I will be happy to merge *approved*

Anton, please add release_32 also in; clang-tools-extra compiler-rt dragonegg libcxxabi lldb They have release_32 in svn. I don't know they might be released, though. And, could you suppress generating refs/heads/svn-tags and prune them for now? I am sure that orphan branches will stress the llvm.org server to begin git-pack-ing whole tree. ...Takumi 2012/11/15 Anton Korobeynikov

Akira, > Pawel, > > Is it still not too late to merge these patches? > > r168471 > r168460 > r168458 > r168456 > r168455 > r168453 > r168450 > r168448 > > These patches fix a bug in mips backend's GOT implementation and add > support for big-GOT relocations. That's quite a list of patches! To get them into the 3.2 release you would first

Pawel, Is it still not too late to merge these patches? r168471 r168460 r168458 r168456 r168455 r168453 r168450 r168448 These patches fix a bug in mips backend's GOT implementation and add support for big-GOT relocations. Thank you. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Just a quick reminder that the November 29th

Should be there On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Anton, please add release_32 also in; > > clang-tools-extra > compiler-rt > dragonegg > libcxxabi > lldb > > They have release_32 in svn. I don't know they might be released, though. > > And, could you suppress generating refs/heads/svn-tags and prune them

The LLVM 3.2 release is winding down, and that means release notes! There are two pieces to this. First, if you're an external LLVM user, we'd like to list you as such in the release notes. This is a great way to get some free advertisement. The section is here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_32/docs/ReleaseNotes.html?revision=HEAD#externalproj Please email

Dear Pawel and All, Pawel (and other release managers), can you ask the project maintainers for each project whether they want a release branch before creating it next time? Alternatively, can you leave branch creation up to the project maintainers as in the past? Pawel, you created a release_32 branch of SAFECode last night without my consultation. That commit itself is fine since we just

Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,

John, > Dear Pawel and All, > > Pawel (and other release managers), can you ask the project maintainers > for each project whether they want a release branch before creating it > next time? Alternatively, can you leave branch creation up to the > project maintainers as in the past? I think asking project maintainers for a go/no-go for branch creation is a very good idea that

Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26

On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text

On 1/11/2013 3:59 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer

On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at

Bill, > Hi Pawel, > > Could you branch polly as well for the 3.2 release? We will need to contact the 'polly' guys to figure out how best to add it to the release (testing, etc.). Sure. But I do not know much about polly so 'polly' guys please fill me on the details. For the 3.2 release I will need: - to know how to build it seems to be covered here