similar to: Git move survey

Hi, > On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Tanya, >> >> Do you have an idea on how we'll put up this survey online? > > I can put it in

On 8 September 2016 at 19:10, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > My personal preference would be for the decision makers to be either a > committee of developers or the LLVM Foundation board, and I would prefer if > the survey were crafted to provide them with information to inform a > decision, rather than a dictation of a decision. Hi Chris, Those are very good

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Duncan, > > I don't understand your concerns. > > First, the choice between sub-modules and mono-repo has been put > forward as the only two choices because people felt that, if we let it > open, we'd have too many different implementation details and we'd >

Hi all, As you probably know, we’ll meet on the first day of the conference, right before lunch, to discuss about a possible move of our hosting to Git/GitHub, and consider the various options and associated tradeoff (Schedule entry here: http://sched.co/8Yzj <http://sched.co/8Yzj> ) I’d like to remind you that the detail of the proposals and the variants is online here:

Folks, It's 1st of September, and we don't have the document nor the survey ready. With the US meeting on 3-4 November, that leaves us only 2 months to do everything, and I'm not sure we'll be able to if we delay much more. Being the devil's advocate and hoping this doesn't spiral down (again), there were a few pertinent questions left unanswered from the previous

> On 2016-Sep-18, at 09:51, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > After feedback from Chris and Mehdi, I have added one long text answer > to *each* critical questions (impact on productivity), so that people > can extend their reasoning. > > But I have not made them compulsory, so that people that don't know > much

Folks, Please note that the survey is still open! But it's almost time for the US LLVM meeting and I'd like to give everybody the ability to inspect the results before entering the BoF session tomorrow. Here is a zip file with the raw results (minus emails) of the data up until this morning, and a short presentation with a summary and my personal pick of the comments.

The deadline to submit a talk or BOF proposal for the 2011 LLVM Developers' Meeting is this Friday (9/30). Please be sure to get your proposals in! We are in particular looking for talks on LLVM or Clang infrastructure. These are talks that describe some of the core components of LLVM or Clang such that someone can take that information and implement new things such as optimizations,

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2016 at 22:25, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. In case I wasn’t clear before, >> I’m not interested in any way “to do a third” proposal. > > Ok, so we only mention two. No we mention what’s in the

Renato, Let me be clear about my motivation on this particular question: I don’t like this variant, and I don’t want us to extra time discussing it at the BoF because we have enough things to go through. But that is only my personal opinion, and I avoid driving solely on my personal opinion, which is why this variant is present in the document. I believe data and facts are and the only way is to

Hey folks, Do we have proposals for an HPC focused BoF at EuroLLVM? I'd like to discuss the current efforts around integrating Polly, parallel IR efforts and vectoriser support in VPlan (like outer loop), as well as coordination on the next steps around Flang. -- cheers, --renato

Call for Talks, Tutorials, BoFs, Panels, and More! All developers and users of LLVM and related sub-projects are invited to present at the 2016 LLVM Developers’ Meeting. We are looking for the following proposals: - Technical Talks on LLVM Infrastructure (~30 minutes) - Technicals Talks on related sub-projects (Clang, etc) - Talks of uses of LLVM in academia or industry - Talks on new projects

The deadline is tonight! Get your proposal in :) -Tanya > On Jul 27, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org> wrote: > > Just a reminder that this deadline is coming up. Submit your proposal today! > > -Tanya > >> On Jun 29, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Tanya Lattner <tanyalattner at llvm.org <mailto:tanyalattner at llvm.org>> wrote: >>

Call for Talks, Tutorials, BoFs, Panels, Student Research Competition, and More! All developers and users of LLVM and related sub-projects are invited to present at the 2017 LLVM Developers’ Meeting. We are looking for the following proposals: Technical Talks (~30 minutes): - On LLVM Infrastructure,Clang and all related sub-projects - On uses of LLVM in academia or industry - On new projects

Call for Talks, Tutorials, BoFs, Panels, Student Research Competition, and More! All developers and users of LLVM and related sub-projects are invited to present at the 2018 LLVM Developers’ Meeting <https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/>. We are looking for the following proposals: Technical Talks (30 minutes including Q&A): - On LLVM Infrastructure,Clang and all related sub-projects - On

What, the deadline is tomorrow?!? The deadline for proposals snuck up on me, and I'm sure many of you forgot as well. Therefore, I am extending the deadline. I have received some great talk proposals, so keep them coming. However, I have very few tutorials, BoFs, posters, or lightening talk proposals. So please, get those proposals in and lets make this year the best developer meeting yet!

Dear R-Helpers, SAS Institute just mailed out the notice below regarding a survey of people who do data mining. To help keep the survey from becoming biased toward commercial software, I thought it would be good to post it here as well. Cheers, Bob Fourth Annual Data Miner Survey Rexer Analytics has asked statistical and data mining software vendors to forward this survey as a courtesy. (SAS is

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > | 6. How important is cross-project blame, grep, etc.? >   <> > I don't understand "cross-project blame" as it works on one file at a time? True, not straightforward blame. My workflow when trying to track the history of some code involves frequently

On 9 September 2016 at 19:05, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > I think having the survey contain a question on which solution the respondent prefers is good, but I feel it is very limited. Well, the current survey is more than just one question... > In general I believe there are three possible decisions that could come from this. Either we go with one of the two

Dear list, I have a data file which includes, alongside various variables representing questionnaire scores, a variable for survey weights computed as the number of observations in the sample drawn from that group divided by the number of observations in the population in the group. I need to calculate a covariance matrix of the questionnaire scores for use in sem. How do I apply the weights?