similar to: [LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> > wrote: > > > Hi Pawel, > > > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > > still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the > > release tarball is

On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the > release tarball is a good idea? Also could you remove it from > the trunk? Please do not, under no circumstances, change the 3.2 release tarballs

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 <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> 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 <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > > Hi Pawel, > > > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > >

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 >>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 11.01.2013, at

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 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

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,

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 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

Brooks, > 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: >>>> >>>>>

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 Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > Brooks, > > > 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

On 1/14/2013 12:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> Brooks, >> >>> 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 Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:41:06PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > On 1/14/2013 12:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > >> Brooks, > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > >>>> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>>> On

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. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:36 AM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) < chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you

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

Pawel, First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort. You are

Tanya, > Pawel, > > First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. Nothing was said so nothing to worry about. > > I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of

Hi Pawel, Sorry for the trouble. At first I think maybe we can upload a new release tarball not replacing it, sorry I didn't say it in the previous mail. IMHO, if you have to do something new after the post-release, make a "dot" release would be better. Perhaps you can write down this experience to benifit other LLVMRM in the future. :-) Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)