similar to: LLVM commit access for a new contributor after github move?

Hi Tom, I do not have SVN account, for accessing LLVM. Thanks, Sourabh On Tue 29 Oct, 2019, 9:08 AM Tom Stellard, <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/26/2019 03:39 AM, Sourabh Singh Tomar wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I recently requested Chris regarding commit access to LLVM. > > He asked me to wait till the GitHub migration completes and then ask in >

Thanks to both! I'll update the docs. Best, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 5:24 μ.μ., ο/η Florian Hahn < florian_hahn at apple.com> έγραψε: > Hi, > > > On 1 Mar 2020, at 14:44, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > I recently was granted commit access, but I'm not really sure what is the > process. > The

Hi everyone, I recently was granted commit access, but I'm not really sure what is the process. The developer policy states: "You are granted *commit-after-approval* to all parts of LLVM. To get approval, submit a patch <https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patch> to llvm-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>. When approved, you may commit it

Hi Hal, > Documentation updates should also be reviewed. Of course, I meant that I'll open a patch in Phabricator. :) I didn't know about code-review patch, thanks. I'll defer the update of developer policy until the other patch is committed so we can have a clearer picture. Kind regards, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 6:17 μ.μ., ο/η Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>

Hello, I was wondering what was the current expected practice for committing patches to LLVM now that the Git monorepo is here. I have commit access to SVN but when I try to land my patched through GitHub I get an error saying "Permission to llvm/llvm-project.git denied". Depending on the answer, the documentation might need to be slightly clarified: the getting started documents for

Hi all, As per the instructions here <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access>, I contacted Chris Lattner to obtain commit access but haven't received a response (either positive or negative). What's the expected turnaround time for this (I contacted him five days ago)? In case he's currently unavailable, is there someone else I could contact? Thanks,

Hi All, While committing a patch today for someone who currently lacks commit access, I realized I had forgotten the 'Patch by' line and reverted & re-committed to add it. However, while doing so I wondered if our current policy on this still makes sense. Our policy at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#commit-messages

Here's another question about the current status of this. It's close to two months after the official monorepo was supposed to be published. Can someone give an update? Is this on hold indefinitely? Are there concrete issues that people are working on and this will happen as soon as those are resolved? At the least, I'm assuming the "SVN will shut down 1 year from now"

Dear Prof.Vikram. Really appreciate the hard work and determination in bringing LLVM concept. I had been a GCC contributor for almost 3-4 years, specially in backend with Renesas(SH) targets. Gone through http://llvm.org and found very challenging, seems to be better in many areas w.r.t GCC. Seeing the work of LLVM, am motivated to contribute to LLVM with reference to HPC needs. I maybe slow to

Hi, I would like to start using GitHub Actions[1] for CI testing on the release/* branches. As far as I know we don't have any buildbots listening to the release branches, and I think GitHub Actions are a good way for us to quickly bring-up some CI jobs there. My proposal is to start by adding two post-commit CI jobs to the release/9.x branch. One for building and testing (ninja checka-all)

Hi, I've recently submitted a patch to llvm-commits (as requested by https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch) and the mailing list answered with a notice that my message is held for moderator approval (with the reason: "Post by non-member to a members-only list"). I'm therefore wondering if I should've submitted my patch via Phabricator

Many git commits in the monorepo look like the following: [Tag0][Tag1] Title line Summary: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque mauris neque, porta nec tristique at, sagittis vel nisi. Fusce pharetra nunc et mauris consequat venenatis. Reviewers: username0, username1 Reviewed By: username0 Subscribers: username2, username3,

What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target? Does anyone else have any concerns about doing so? -Chris > On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +better dylanmckay address > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:

Folks, On review http://reviews.llvm.org/D8197, we're basically down to two bikeshedding issues: 1. Title tags Some people use "[CSE] Change blah", others use "CSE: Change blah". I hadn't put anything regarding tags because not everyone use it and when they do, it's slightly different. I personally don't think it's a reason to argue about, so I'm in

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:29 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 10/10/2019 11:40 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com >>

Yup, Phabricator is generally preferred for patches. Additionally, are you subscribed to the mailing list? I can't find where I read it now, but I believe your messages are held for moderation if you aren't subscribed. You can subscribe at http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits if needed. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Christoph Kindl

Hi Nick, Thanks for looking over my patch. I'd be happy to add the compare against cur_buffer_size. I'll try to write up such a change today and then send a new patch to the list. Joseph Kain On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Bill, could you take a look at this? I don't have a checkout of > compiler-rt that builds. > >

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > -1 to "squash and merge" being the only option if rebase+push (--ff-only) is possible. I'd rather we use our judgement to decide what's appropriate for the pull request at hand rather than have a blanket rule. > > Personally, if I have multiple commits

Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember two cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is that as a community we should honor "revert for more design review" requests unconditionally. What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 20:07, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> I think there are different kinds of inflexibility. We will use our collective professional judgment. There are some large-scale design changes that we might decide can happen over time. Whatever we decide to accept,