similar to: Attribution of patches when committing for someone else

Hi! Some time ago my email address, that I use for committing to LLVM SVN repo has changed (nasty corporate mail changing) and now it's not aligned with email I sent to Chris according to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access page . Unfortunately it's not possible to forward all messages from LLVM mailing lists from my old address to new one, so I wonder

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,

> 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

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

I also find the "Reviewed by" tag useful (as well as the review link), for the same reasons. In fact, I don't even use arcanist to push commits, so I do it all by hand, and only include the "Reviewed by" and "Differential Revision" tags. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 20:55, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think

Can we fix this in reviews.llvm.org's fork of phab? https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/blob/cac3dc4983c3671ba4ec841aac8efac10744a80c/src/applications/differential/conduit/DifferentialGetCommitMessageConduitAPIMethod.php Seems straightforward(-ish) to drop the relevant fields there, that way `arc land` automatically DTRT. Jon On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:30 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev

The limitation with the "Reviewed by" line is that if you just use `arc` it indicates who was added as reviewer on the revision, but not who approved it. Because of this, I am wary of relying on this line for anything. If you want to know who reviewed a change, better click on the Differential Revision link and go to the source of truth. -- Mehdi On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:44 AM

When committing changes on behalf of other contributors, I've started setting the author in Git to be the change author. I think that's better for attribution than just including "Patch By: username" in the message which is default for arc, especially now that we're finally using Git. However, I've noticed that when the change breaks bots, emails are sent only to the

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

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

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, "Rafael Ávila de Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>, "Michael Spencer" > <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>, "Chandler Carruth"

I'm sure I've seen many commits with both "Reviewed by:" and "Reviewers:" tags, which look to have been done with arc (though I can't be sure). How were those generated? On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 19:12, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I tend to prune it down myself - and if the list has only one name > on it, it's usually a pretty

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

On 07/06/2011 07:10 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Tor Gunnar Houeland wrote: > >>> There is no need to include any notices in the binaries of an application built with clang, or some with some other application that links to the LLVM runtime libraries that are dual licensed. >> Thanks for your response. Is this ability to distribute binaries without

Hi, https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access still describes the SVN process. How do things work now that we're on github? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191101/7bc2d459/attachment.html>

Hi, > Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:59:56 -0600 > From: Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Submitting patches for LLVM -- llvm-commits > vs. Phabricator? > > Hi, > The current practice is to upload a

On 07/07/2011 02:25 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > I, and many other reasonable people, consider the phrase: > > "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." > > ... to be talking about *copies of the software*. A binary is not a copy of the software, it is a lump of bits derived from it. >

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,

I'm not sure if this is well known, but it helped me so I thought I'd share it with you. When committing to gitmonorepo, (with git llvm push) you need to have committed to your local repo first and so you need to have crafted your commit message from your the Phabricator revision. (e.g. D12345) Phabricator has the ability to give you this commit message it would have used, even if you do

Is that possible, and would you know how I can do that? I''m creating individual pages for users based on their first and last names. In my routes.rb, I have: map.client '':user_full_name'', :controller => ''user'', :action => ''individual_user_page'' Then in my controller, I have: def individual_user_page @user =