similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.6.2 Release schedule + Using Phab for stable patches

On 11/14, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: > Ideally I’d even really like to have a both checking for revision on > phab, clang-formatting them, and post a comment when there is a > mismatch :) I'd like that! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do a > normal review. Wait what? The emails I get from phab *have* an attached patch file. That was a hard requirement when we first set up Phabricator. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

So, I forwarded the request for highlighting trailing whitespaces to phabricator upstream (https://secure.phabricator.com/T11879), and upstream folks suggest we enable the Lint feature in Arcanist ( https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/arcanist_lint/). This will enforce the check when `arc diff` is run (reviewers wouldn't see the warnings though). There are two linters we

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca >> <mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca>> wrote: >> >> I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do >> a normal review. >> >>

Why isn’t it in the LLVM repo? > On Nov 16, 2016, at 7:44 AM, Johannes Doerfert <doerfert at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > > We have a clang format based arcanist linter (and some others) in the > Polly repository. When arcanist is used to create a review, the linter > result is shown online. We also have an arcanist add-on to run the lit > tests and show their result in

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca >> <mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca>> wrote: >> >> I don't like the lack attached patch files on the mailing list to do >> a normal review. >> >>

I wonder if Phabricator has an ability to highlight trailing whitespaces, because I often find trailing whitespaces after they are submitted. If they were highlighted, they would have been removed before submitting. Does anyone know about this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

When I create a patch, I run clang-format-diff, so that's fine. What I want to do is to find trailing whitespaces in others patches. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > clang-format removes them. > If you are (like me) likely to forget to run "git clang-format HEAD~” > before pushing, adding a pre-commit (or

On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote: > Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the > website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I > don't get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get > any kind of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up > historic responses in the mailing list archive

Alp noted that the current setup on how phab reviews land on the list are not working for him. I'd be curious whether his setup is special, or whether there are more widespread problems. If this is more widely perceived as a problem, please speak up, and I'll make sure to prioritize the fixes (note that this is unrelated to the "lost email" problem - those are always highest

I think it may make sense to segregate the libcxx lit tests that expect a task to be completed in a particular threshold. Either they should move to the llvm test-suite or they should be under a feature guard that omits them from the default test target. These tests are sensitive to the load and/or capability of the target on which they're tested. I appreciate that it's likely

Hi, I have tagged 3.6.2-final, so testers can start building and uploading -final binaries. There was only one change between 3.6.2-rc1 and 3.6.2-final, which was a patch to the R600 backend to fix the build with VS2012. Running a full regression suite is probably not necessary, but you still can if you want to be extra careful. -Tom

The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and review as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting patches to lists, with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders. It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than github, or maillists, so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from what i can tell, 99.9% patches go via

On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to get traction on a new patch is to upload it to

On 7/1/14, 12:28 PM, Alp Toker wrote: > Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the website are > unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I don't get copied in on > responses to my review comments, and rarely get any kind of direct mail with > threading. You end up having to dig up historic responses in the mailing list > archive which

clang+llvm-3.6.2-rc1-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz The second test run finally finished (the machine lacks an FPU). All good. ________________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: 28 June 2015 18:51 To: Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: 3.6.2-rc1 has been tagged. Testers needed. clang+llvm-3.6.2-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz All good

At 8/10/2020 03:02 PM, Robinson, Paul wrote: >> Why did you 'git pull --rebase' when the branch was up-to-date? Is this >> just a safety habit? > >Yes. Frequently I put my patches on my local master branch, rather >than create a separate patch branch, and always rebasing keeps my >commits at the HEAD of the branch. It's harmless when you have no >local

Hi Manuel, I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). — Mehdi > On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > Quick update from IRC chat: > Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a

Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience. There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report problems, let alone try to resolve them. Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has customized

Hi, I’m looking at RegBankSelect’s partially implemented support for deciding to split a value between multiple registers and I’m wondering if it’s actually intended to solve the problem I’m trying to use it for. RegisterBankInfo.h has this example mapping table: /// E.g., /// Let say we have a 32-bit add and a <2 x 32-bit> vadd. We /// can expand the /// <2 x 32-bit> add into