similar to: Please unbreak phabricator

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > Please assume good faith -- I'm pretty sure this is simply a configuration mistake, since Mehdi just upgraded Phabricator to a new upstream revision last night. > Probably the default behavior changed in the new upstream version, and it just needs to be turned off. Yep, that's why i'm

Sorry, I didn't notice this change of default last night. Thanks for fixing this! -- Mehdi On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:50 AM MyDeveloper Day via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I've made the change > > https://reviews.llvm.org/harbormaster/plan/5/ > > MyDeveloperDay <https://reviews.llvm.org/p/MyDeveloperDay/> changed the Hold > Drafts

This is configured in the "pre-merge checks" build plan, the "Hold Drafts" needs to be set to "Never" I should be able to change this in the build plan if you want but I don't want to step on anyone's toes MyDeveloperDay On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:35 PM MyDeveloper Day <mydeveloperday at gmail.com> wrote: > See the "Draft Mode" changes,

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

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 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

The current documentation talks about both the Phabricator review, and review as mail replies on -commits lists. It also talks about submitting patches to lists, with the subtext that it may be friendlier for outsiders. It is true that Phabricator has some entry threshold, larger than github, or maillists, so the attempt is not unwarranted. But from what i can tell, 99.9% patches go via

Hi All, I just posted a review with arcanist (which I'm fairly new to) and it included a build status. How it got there is totally opaque to me, but my workflow was: Using git+svn (following the setup in https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#for-developers-to-work-with-git-svn) make a change, commit with 'git commit', create review with 'air diff'. It would be cool if

On 6/19/19 12:50 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: I believe the history is that when Phab was initially introduced, we wrote the documentation this way to make things easy for reviewers who didn't want to change their workflow. But, I agree with your observations. The majority of code review seems to happen on Phabricator, and the best way to get traction on a new patch is to upload it to

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 Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:56:53PM +0000, Renato Golin via cfe-dev wrote: > GitHub PR is the "de facto standard", everyone knows, the entry cost > is practically zero. The UI is lean and missing features, but the > large availability of tooling (either targeting GitHub directly or > plain git) makes up for a lot of it. Just like with the "Everyone knows git", I

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 >

Hello, I sometime forget to set the "Repository" when uploading a patch on Phabricator, and that prevents from adding llvm-commits as a subscriber. [cid:image001.png at 01D61A45.E388B060] Would it make sense to set 'LLVM Github Monorepo' as a default? Or subscribe 'llvm-commits' automatically when creating a patch? Thanks! Alex. -------------- next part --------------

> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in

Hah, whoops, sorry about that. This is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit> -Chris > On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Thomas Lively <tlively at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > I'm also seeing an access denied

lld/test/ELF/invalid/symtab-sh-info.s (check-lld-elf) is recently flaky on Windows, e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/harbormaster/unit/view/192869/ http://45.33.8.238/win/27684/step_10.txt It fails like every 3 or 4 builds. Could someone with a Windows machine check what is going on? Is that due to output non-determinism (just my guess) in yaml2obj.exe? -------------- next part -------------- An

ORACLE unbreak Linux and CENTOS both source code come from Redhat LINUX.? Does there have other difference between CENTOS and ORACLE Linux? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ?????????Yahoo!??????2.0????????????? http://tw.mg0.mail.yahoo.com/dc/landing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

This looks to be a reasonable starting point. A couple of nit picks, none are blockers. 1. I'd hold off on handing out the sub-domain for the moment. This feels more official than we probably want for a random incubator.  I reserve the right to change my mind here, but maybe we should delay this part until we see what actual incubators look like?  As an alternative, maybe

The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in general in the LLVM Developer Policy. To help with both of these Stella and I worked together to draft up a new section for the LLVM developer policy (incorporating the existing “New Targets” section). Ahead of proposing a

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:25 PM Michael Spencer via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone. My name is DeForest Richards. I’m the technical writer who was selected to work on the LLVM project as part of the Google Season of Docs program. I’ll be helping to