similar to: Allowing PRs on GitHub for some subprojects

> On Feb 20, 2020, at 14:25, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 02/20, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: >> 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

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 17:16, Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote: > > `arc patch` should preserve the author information in the original commit, if there was any. At least it has in my experience. Yes, but I think people can upload raw patches to Phabricator without using `arc diff`. I know I ran into one of these just last week where I used Johannes' script (thanks!) and

> On Mar 3, 2020, at 18:48, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm one of those people ;) That's not something to be proud of if you expect a maintainer to commit on your behalf. If you commit yourself, then whatever. Louis > > -eric > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 2:20 PM Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > Mehdi, Chris & others, > > I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over very > well in my original message. > You original message was about “ commit attribution”, but now it is all about testing? Instead of jumping to a solution (pull-request) why not expressing the

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:42 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote: > >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for wanting to switch over

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:19 AM Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Louis, > > I think this is a good idea. We should start with some local experiments > where people are willing to try it and figure out how well that works and > what does not. Why not allow this for "not significant" changes? They are > merged without review

On 2020-03-04, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev wrote: > > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 12:13, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com <mailto:ldionne at apple.com>> wrote: >> Mehdi, Chris & others, >> >> I guess I did not express the main reasons for

[Cross-post to llvm-dev to make sure everybody relevant sees this] Hi, I'm currently trying to simplify the libc++/libc++abi/libunwind build systems and testing setup. In doing so, I am encountering issues related to "unusual" ways of building them. By unusual, I just mean "not the usual monorepo build with LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS". I would like to pin down what the set of

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,

Thanks Shoaib for a great summary. To summarize this as an answer to Louis' questions: 1. What is a "Standalone build"? What does it enable that a normal monorepo build can't? This means building any of the runtimes separately, where the runtime's CMakeLists.txt (e.g. path/to/my/llvm-project/libcxx/CMakeLists.txt) is the top-level one. The reason for using this variant is

> On Sep 24, 2020, at 23:52, Petr Hosek <phosek at chromium.org> wrote: > > Using more interface libraries is definitely the right direction and a modern way to use CMake. I'm not sure if we can get to a single interface target since different runtimes have different requirements. I was assuming that we would have one interface target per dependency and use the existing CMake

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

Hi folks, Building any LLVM project currently requires invoking CMake inside <monorepo-root>/llvm, while setting the projects to enable in the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS variable. This has the downside that CMake processing for the LLVM subproject happens even when one doesn't really need or want it. It's also not great from a build hygiene perspective, as LLVM globally sets some flags

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 15:28, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > From the "not largely affected" camp: > > - the churn doesn't feel that major for HAS_ and ... > - the uniformity feels nice > > and in general feels nice and in pursuit of the longer term goals here. > > -eric > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:58 AM Petr

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>

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 03/25/2020 06:20 AM, Louis Dionne wrote: > > >> On Mar 25, 2020, at 00:47, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 03/24/2020 09:00 PM, Petr Hosek via llvm-dev wrote: >>> In October, there was a discussion about updating CMake to 3.15: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html. No decision was made, but maybe we

On 06/18/2020 11:27 AM, Steven Wu via llvm-dev wrote: > I like the proposal but I would like to go even further. If we are going to create a top level CMake file, we should just go ahead and eliminate all the standalone build configuration. The standalone build should just be `cmake <monorepo-root> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=standalone-project ...`. That means less build configuration to

I just landed these patches: commit c55051eea5d3cd57abfd9727f519b670517704d9 Author: Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> Date: Thu Jun 25 12:02:43 2020 -0400 [libunwind] Allow specifying custom Lit config files This is the libunwind counterpart of 0c66af970c80. commit 33c9c10d183371edc95fa936705bef56f55ab611 Author: Louis Dionne <ldionne at

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > It's worth pointing out that GitHub is not able to do this properly, > either. The problem on GitHub's side is that while a pull request can > contain multiple commits, one cannot properly review those commits > individually, and it is not at all possible to approve individual