similar to: [LLVMdev] More code owners needed

Hi, I would like to nominate David Majnemer as the code owner for constant folding: lib/IR/ConstantFold.cpp. He seems to be the most active developer based on the git history. David do you accept? -Tom

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > Tom, code owner nomination. > > Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How > long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd > like to follow? > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets updated once Chris approves. -Tom > cheers,

Hi, I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have been two issues identified in 3.4.1, which there is interest in having fixed in a 3.4.x release: 1. Build failure with gcc 4.9 (This is not a regression, 3.4 also fails to build with gcc 4.9). 2. Accidental change of libLLVM's DT_SONAME from libLLVM-3.4 libLLVM-3.4.1.so I will also accept any other bug-fixes that

Hi, I would like to nominate Martin Storsjö as code owner for MinGW changes in LLVM. -Tom

Hi, I would like to nominate Peter Collingbourne as a code owner for libLTO since he has done a lot of work on the new LTO APIs. -Tom

Hi all, I am hereby resigning my code ownership of libclc. I would like to nominate Tom Stellard as the new code owner. Thanks, -- Peter

i Don't know if others have raised this issue, but I'm seeing *a lot* of llvm-dev emails and cfe emails landing in my spam folder in gmail. Are other people having this problem? On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have > been two issues identified in

After several years as LLVM release manager, I’ve decided to step down as release manager. I recently haven’t been able to focus as much time on LLVM development as I should, and I don’t want the releases to suffer because of that. I’ve enjoyed all of the releases I’ve done. We have a great team of testers. And the community as a whole really helps out so that we can produce a great produce. I my

Hi Robert, Can you ping the code owners about these patches. It might be good to write a separate email per code owner and cc the appropriate -commits list. Thanks, Tom On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:16:44PM +0400, Robert Khasanov wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I would like to nominate the following patches to be backported to 3.4.1 > > Clang: > 1. r204742 - Zinovy Nis <zinovy.nis at

Yes, we discussed this beforehand and I'd be happy to be the code owner. Peter On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 13, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to nominate Peter Collingbourne as

I think the people that have been in there the most are Hal and Chandler of late with a few others here and there. -eric On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:30 AM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > > > We should find a code owner for the scalarizer > >

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:08:13PM +0400, Robert Khasanov wrote: > Hi Reid, > > Would you approve your patches r203146 and r202774 to be backported to > 3.4.1? They fix stability issues in x86 asm. > Hi Robert, I was able to merge r203146, but it used a c++11 feature: std::string::back() which I replaced with std::string::at(std::string::size() - 1). r202774 was not merged,

Hi, Here is a proposed release schedule for 3.9.1: Nov 21, 2016: Deadline for nominating change to merge to the 3.9 branch Nov 29, 2016: -rc1 Dec 5, 2015: 3.9.1 Release As a reminder, if you would like to request a patch be merged to the 3.9 branch, file a bug at www.llvm.org/bugs with the subject "Merge rxxxxx into the 3.9 branch." and add

I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already have lots of fields that are never used. Having said that, your suggestions seem reasonable, and it would be cool if we could create tools to automate the release process a bit more based on this. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > On

The time has come to review the current Contributor and Core contributor grants for ZFS. Since all of the ZFS core contributors grants are set to expire on 02-24-2009 we need to renew the members that are still contributing at core contributor levels. We should also add some new members to both Contributor and Core contributor levels. First the current list of Core contributors: Bill

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 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 Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> After several years as LLVM release manager, I’ve decided to step down as release manager. I recently haven’t been able to focus as much time on LLVM development as I should, and I don’t want the releases to suffer

Hi, I would like to propose adding the following new fields/flags to bugzilla. My goal is to make it easier to manage bug fixes and merges using automated scripts. - "Trunk Revision(s)" field This would give users a place to enter which revision(s) in trunk fixed a particular bug. This would make it easy to generate a list of bugs fixed by each release which could be included in the

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