similar to: [LLVMdev] [Announcement] 3.3 Tentative Release Schedule

> We will be branching for the 3.3 release one Monday, May 6th at 5PM PDT (Tuesday, May 7th 12:00 midnight GMT). I noticed there is a 3.3 branch in svn, but not in git. Anton, are you still the one managing the git repos? Also, I just added a note to the release info on trunk before noticing we had branched. I was about to port it over, but then noticed that

I will add release branches soon. I just decided to wait a bit in case of some emergency re-creation of branches, etc. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> We will be branching for the 3.3 release one Monday, May 6th at 5PM PDT (Tuesday, May 7th 12:00 midnight GMT). > > I noticed there is a 3.3 branch in svn, but not in git.

Hello LLVMers! Amazingly, it's been 4 months since the release of LLVM 2.8. And so much has changed since then! April will be six months since the previous release, so it's time to start thinking about LLVM 2.9! Here is a tentative schedule for the release (and, of course, our schedules never slip): March 6th - Branch for release. March 7th-14th - Testing Phase 1

----- Original Message ---- > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > To: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 3:26:35 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > >>

The six month release time table is coming up soon, which means that it's ready to start planning for the next release! Here is the tentative schedule: October 14th – Create 3.0 Branch October 16th – First Round of Testing Starts October 23rd – First Round of Testing Ends / Bug Fixing Begins October 30th – Second Round of Testing Starts November 6th – Second Round of Testing Ends / Bug

On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:05 AM, Jan Sjodin wrote: > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: >> >>> On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: >>>> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? >>>> >>> >>> Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? >> >> While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on

Hi all, I’m sorry for the late announcement. Here’s a tentative schedule for the 3.5 release. July 21: Branch for 3.5 release. - All features should be near completion. Changes to complete existing features will be accepted until the end of testing phase I. But they should *not* be major (i.e., large) changes. If they are, they may be rejected. July 21-27: Testing Phase I. - Binaries

Good news, everybody! It's that time of year again. We are going to release LLVM 2.8! I'm taking over for Tanya to give her a much needed break. I can only hope to perform as well as she has. This is my first time as release manager, so bear with me if things don't go smoothly. This message is mostly to give you an idea of the schedule we're planning on. It's an aggressive

On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: >> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? >> > > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it at the moment. -Chris

On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9?

Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? Yuri

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > >> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? > >> > > > > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? > > While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is

Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Things still needed are marked with FIXMEs. These include: 1. Clang needs a blurb describing what's new in 2.7. Have the clang folks been doing anything for the last 6 months? 2. I

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:57:05 -0700 Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Good news, everybody! > > It's that time of year again. We are going to release LLVM 2.8! I'm > taking over for Tanya to give her a much needed break. I can only > hope to perform as well as she has. This is my first time as release > manager, so bear with me if things don't go

First, some logistical information. The conference will be held at the San Jose Hilton. I've updated the webpage with the exact location. During registration (coming very soon!) you will have the opportunity to book a hotel room directly through that process (and get the reduced rate). Now, I'm pleased to announce the tentative agenda for the 2010 LLVM Developers' Meeting: LLDB -

On 11.05.2012, at 22:55, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all! > > Please remember to update the release notes! We're getting close to the release date, and we need the notes to be up-to-date. I added some bigger picture notes to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html this morning, but we're still missing a lot of text, specifically: - clang: clang has it's own release notes

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:48:02AM +0000, Stilez Stilezy wrote: > As mentioned in another thread, I notice that the params used to control > symlinks feel a bit inefficient and inelegant, and quite limited.  I think > there might be a good opportunity to simplify and also make their management in > Samba more powerful and adaptable to use-cases.  I'm guessing this list is a >

Hi All, With 2.9 starting to make its way out into the world, it is time to start poking at the release notes. I plan to make a pass through llvm-commits to cull some of the major changes into bullets, but am already behind and insanely busy with other stuff over the next week. If you have commit access, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a pass through llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.html

Hi all! Please remember to update the release notes! We're getting close to the release date, and we need the notes to be up-to-date. Also, if you have a project which uses LLVM, please send me a blurb about it and I can add it to our "external projects" list (or, if you have commit access, you can add it). Thanks! -bw

On 10/17/2011 10:09 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > llvm-gcc is dead, deprecated in favour of clang and dragonegg. It won't be part > of the upcoming 3.0 release. This is why no-one is interested in working on it. The tentative release notes still say otherwise: "LLVM 3.0 will be the last release of llvm-gcc." (http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html) I understand that llvm-gcc