similar to: GitHub commits that aren't on any branch

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I wish we could just get the viewvc working or set up some kind of > forwarding from those URLs to something that works. > > There are tons and tons of links pointing to the viewvc which are now > broken, including the archives of all commit emails. I share in that desire; the

Hello, I merged my test commit successfully. (./utils/release/merge.sh --proj llvm --rev 46043 -srcdir ../llvm/) ... D46043 as "Merging r46043" https://reviews.llvm.org/rL330799 But I have issues with other patch - https://reviews.llvm.org/D45418 I ran ./utils/release/merge.sh --proj llvm --rev 45418 -srcdir ../llvm/ # Updating tree Updating '.': At revision 330799. #

The merge.sh script is used to merge SVN commits to the release branch. It sounds like what you want to do is commit patches from Phabricator to trunk? If that's the case, see https://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#committing-a-change On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Dávid Bolvanský via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I merged my test commit

"If memory serves correctly, ViewVC was intentionally disabled because it was causing some problems on the LLVM server (load problems, I think)." If that is the case, perhaps something as simple as a robots.txt will solve the load problem? On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I wish we could just get the viewvc

That appears to have been pushed to refs/am/changes/bbc4c751f01bb6f649942d3cf3b504a87c9019c8_swift/master-next Does someone (perhaps someone from apple) know what that is? Was it pushed there, rather than the swift fork, by mistake? On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:12 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Someone pushed these changes to LLVM repo. See e.g.

Hi, Since ViewVC has been down for a while, I was wondering if it's possible to change the revision links from lab.llvm.org to point elsewhere. For instance, the Phabricator revision if there is one, or maybe the klaus link. Could this be done? Cheers, Diana On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, John Criswell via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 4/20/16 12:14 PM, Sean

Hi, It looks like LLVM's Phabricator started picking up downstream commits in Apple's fork of llvm-project (github.com/apple/llvm-project), and is creating notification events about all the old downstream commits, e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/rG8910c5c786886f17a75bd142fa967932ca3f54c1 https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb03469c2d72621e1cccfeeaef719692600c075f4 This seems like a bug. Can this be

What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing that I'll have to use Phabricator. It's like nails on a chalkboard. -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:13 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 6:03 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I > hate

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Sameer Sahasrabuddhe via llvm-dev wrote: > October 30, 2019 5:58 AM, "Alex L via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Oh, this explains it! Unfortunately one of our engineers made a mistake, and pushed the ref to >> wrong remote while resolving a merge conflict on https://github.com/apple/llvm-project (pushed to >>

Hi, I am sending this proposal to get feedbacks on how we could make the tagging of bug fixes and regressions more obvious. The idea is to provide easily accessible information to help deciding what to cherry-pick in a release branch. * Context * People shipping compilers based on LLVM may not completely align with the official releases of LLVM. Thus, the stabilization of each custom release

Now that we're on GitHub, can we *please* move to GitHub PRs? As much as I hate git, I hate Phabricator/Archanist even more. They're super clunky and makes working in git that much worse. -bw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/e47b7e36/attachment.html>

Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist so that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor? -bw On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:33 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 6:17 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > What was the verdict? Any plans to move? I hate coding anything knowing > that I'll have to use Phabricator.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear > history

Hi folks, Another thought on the topic is tooling support and tool integration: There is a hughe ecosystem around Github and very little around Phabricator. It took me 2 days to set up build jobs for the 10.x release branch [1]. There are nice build integrations for Github and it was smooth sailing. Setting up a build job for pull requests would just be a few clicks now. In contrast I've

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:29 PM David Greene via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > What is the practical plan to enforce the lack of merges? When we > > looked into this GitHub would not support this unless also forcing > > every change to go through a pull request (i.e. no pre-receive hooks >

Hi, I would like to start a discussion about improvements to the stable release process, but first, here is a proposed schedule for the 4.0.1 release. May 1, 2017 -rc1 May 22, 2017 Deadline for submitting merge request May 29, 2017 Deadline for merging changes. June 3, 2017 -rc2 June 10, 2017 Final Release This is slightly different from previous stable releases in that we are doing an early

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On 01/07, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > Then perhaps those opposed could suggest how to use Phabricator/Arcanist > so > > that I don't throw my keyboard through my monitor? > > Please explain your problems, w/o the hyperbole, so people can actually do >

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 17:35, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:16 PM Bill Wendling via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:59 PM Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bill, >>> >>> On 01/07, Bill

I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out. FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub

Hi, I know there has been significant discussion about "moving" from Phabricator to GitHub reviews and pull requests, etc. I'm not suggesting that we do anything in terms of global LLVM policy. However, as a maintainer of libc++, I commit __a lot__ of other people's code for them. It would be a huge time saver for me if I could nicely suggest to contributors (not force them) to