similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.3 dot releases

On 24 June 2013 17:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > + Participation from developers is optional. If developers don't have > time to help with issues in the stable branch, they do not have to. > This may be very hard on the interested parties in the long term. I agree that we should not force the dot-release on everyone as of now, but if it becomes an accepted

Hi Tom, On 24 Jun 2013, at 17:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > I've come up with the following dot release 'rules': > > + Dot releases will follow the same procedure as major releases, which > means stable patches must be approved by the appropriate code owner and > that dot releases will have the same testing and qualification requirements.

Hello All, I''m happy to announce a new release candidate of Foreman, top highlights for this release includes: * New look and feel * Extended restful API * Support for New Puppet Reports format * Full VM/physical host Provisioning * Powerful template generator ( pxelinux, gpxe, kickstart, preseed, grub etc..) * introduce a new service called smart proxy (which can run on remote

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:59:39AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > > lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library.

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:12:42PM -0400, Sean Silva wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > > > > How many customers out there are shipping their LLVM-based products > > > without actually including the LLVM sources? If they do include the > > > sources, they may fix the bug locally, especially if

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:51:05PM -0500, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 4/3/2013 2:36 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > >I don't think the length of the release cycle really matters too much. > > It does. Someone has to do the work---the effort goes to either to > the ongoing development or to the maintenance releases. A short > release cycle generally means less

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:12:42PM -0400, Sean Silva wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How many customers out there are shipping their LLVM-based products > > > > without actually including

For the record, I'm not opposed to this. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. But I do feel that these are issues that need to be thought out before we continue. -bw On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:52:09AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at

On 4/2/2013 11:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. Does this really make sense with a 6 month release cycle for the main releases? Who are the customers who

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:52:09AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > > lot of the users of LLVM, especially

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:47:33PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:52:09AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >> > >> As Chris said, the only thing preventing this is manpower.

On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. > I am willing to help maintain bug fix releases, and I'm

On Apr 3, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:47:33PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:52:09AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: >>>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at

On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:52:09AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >> >> As Chris said, the only thing preventing this is manpower. But if there are people ready and willing to do this, then I don't see it as a Bad

On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. > I am willing to help maintain bug fix releases, and I'm wondering if >

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:08:42PM -0500, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 4/2/2013 11:51 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > >I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix > >releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a > >lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. > > Does this

My current under-developed project is using rails 1.0 and now plan to upgrade to rails rc1.1,the project uses the Rails-engine and Login-engine as the login module,when I update the rails according to http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/articles/2006/03/22/rails-1-1-release-candidate-1-available The project still can not be started,anybody can tell me the reason?very thanksful!And following is the

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > How many customers out there are shipping their LLVM-based products > > without actually including the LLVM sources? If they do include the > > sources, they may fix the bug locally, especially if they are > > capable of investigating what the problem is. > > > >

Hi, I would really like to see the LLVM project start to make official bug fix releases (e.g. 3.3.1, 3.3.2, etc.). I think that this would be useful for a lot of the users of LLVM, especially projects that use LLVM as a library. I am willing to help maintain bug fix releases, and I'm wondering if this is something that the LLVM project would officially support with a stable SVN branch and by

On 4/2/2013 4:10 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > This is hard to say, but probably as required. As required by what/whom? -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation