similar to: 3.9.1 Release Schedule

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "3.9.1 Release Schedule"

2016 Apr 22
6
3.8.1 Release Schedule
Hi, It's about time to start thinking about the 3.8.1 release. Here is a proposed release schedule: May 25 - Deadline to request a change be merged to the 3.8 branch. June 1 - Deadline to merge changes to the 3.8 branch. June 1 - 3.8.1-rc1 June 8 - 3.8.1-rc2 (if necessary) June 15 - 3.8.1 Release If you want a patch included in the 3.8.1 release, send an email to llvm-commits with the
2015 May 27
3
[LLVMdev] 3.6.2 Release schedule + Using Phab for stable patches
Hi, Here is the schedule for the 3.6.2 release: June 15: Deadline to propose patches for the 3.6 branch June 15 - June 21: Grace period for reviewing proposed patches and resolving other issues. June 22: 3.6.2 -rc1 June 29: 3.6.2 release Also, I would like to try to try to experiment with using phabricator for proposing patches to the stable branch. This is not a
2016 Dec 13
7
3.9.1 -final has been tagged
Hi, I've created the 3.9.1-final tag no changes from -rc3. Testers can begin uploading binaries now. -Tom
2015 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] Reminder 3.5.2 merge deadline is Monday, Mar 16 - Testers needed
I've uploaded clang+llvm-3.5.2-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz and clang+llvm-3.5.2-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz started testing them. > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Daniel Sanders > Sent: 16 March 2015 15:36 > To: Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Reminder 3.5.2
2018 Mar 13
4
LLVM Release Schedules: 5.0.2, 6.0.1
Hi, We don't normally do X.Y.2 releases, but there has been some interest in getting a 5.0.2 release out with the Spectre mitigations included, so I am proposing the following schedule for a 5.0.2 release: LLVM 5.0.2 -rc1 Mon Mar 19 -final Mon Mar 26 To keep things easy for testers, 5.0.2 will be for Spectre related fixes only and won't be opened up for general bugs. And here is
2016 Dec 10
5
3.9.1-rc3 has been tagged
Hi, I have tagged 3.9.1-rc3. The only differences from -rc2 were a few bug fixes for ARM/AARCH64, so if you aren't testing either of these I think it's safe to take this -rc off and what for -final. I'm hoping to do -final next week after I get the ARM test results. Thanks, Tom
2016 Nov 21
2
Nominating a fix for the 3.9 branch
LLVM devs: Is this the right forum for nominating a fix for the 3.9 branch? I'd like to nominate r279930. http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=279930 We ran into this on 3.9.0, and then confirmed that it affects 3.7.0. Eric
2015 Mar 12
8
[LLVMdev] Reminder 3.5.2 merge deadline is Monday, Mar 16 - Testers needed
Hi, Just a reminder that testing for 3.5.2 will begin on Monday, Mar 16. If you have any patches you want merged please send an email to the relevant commits list and cc me and the code owner. If you have already done this and are waiting for a response, please ping the thread. As always we need testers, so let me know if you want to help with testing. Thanks, Tom
2014 May 12
12
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4.2 Release Plan - Testers Needed
Hi, I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have been two issues identified in 3.4.1, which there is interest in having fixed in a 3.4.x release: 1. Build failure with gcc 4.9 (This is not a regression, 3.4 also fails to build with gcc 4.9). 2. Accidental change of libLLVM's DT_SONAME from libLLVM-3.4 libLLVM-3.4.1.so I will also accept any other bug-fixes that
2023 Feb 15
2
2023 X.Org Foundation Membership deadline for voting in the election
The 2023 X.Org Foundation elections are rapidly approaching. We will be forwarding the election schedule and nominating process to the membership shortly. Please note that only current members can vote in the upcoming election, and that the deadline for new memberships or renewals to vote in the upcoming election is 26 March 2023 at 23:59 UTC. If you are interested in joining the X.Org
2016 Dec 02
9
3.9.1-rc2 is ready for testing
Hi, I just tagged 3.9.1-rc2, so testing can begin. There was a bug found in -rc1 before I could send out a release announcement, so I decided to merge the fix and tag -rc2 to save some testing cycles. We can always use more testers, so if you are interested in helping, let me know. Thanks, Tom
2014 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] gmail marking llvm emails as spam? Re:
i Don't know if others have raised this issue, but I'm seeing *a lot* of llvm-dev emails and cfe emails landing in my spam folder in gmail. Are other people having this problem? On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have > been two issues identified in
2016 Dec 14
0
[cfe-dev] 3.9.1 -final has been tagged
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 05:10:42PM -0500, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: > Hi, > > I've created the 3.9.1-final tag no changes from -rc3. Testers can > begin uploading binaries now. Have the source tarballs been published for rc2 or rc3? I'd like to test update the FreeBSD package, but the files don't appear where I'd expect to find them
2015 Apr 20
4
[LLVMdev] More code owners needed
Hi, I've been going through my queue of candidate patches for the 3.6 branch, and I think the process could be smoother if we had more code owners. So, I'd like to encourage people to nominate themselves or others as code owners for any part of LLVM that doesn't already have one. The responsibilities of a code owner include reviewing patches submitted to llvm-commits and approving
2017 Jan 25
2
LLVM 3.9.1 build race?
Hi Justin, > This looks like something I fixed recently, in r290271: ... ... > The tablegen build adopted USES_TERMINAL for this same reason in > r280748. I applied the 2 patches you mentioned above on my 3.9.1 tree and although the build seems to go along nicely than the earlier reported symptoms I can still see LLVMSupport being built a bit too many times than expected. $ cat
2015 Mar 18
6
[LLVMdev] Reminder 3.5.2 merge deadline is Monday, Mar 16 - Testers needed
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:51:32PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:04:35PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just a reminder that testing for 3.5.2 will begin on Monday, Mar 16. If > > you have any patches you want merged please send an email to the > > relevant commits list and cc me and the code owner. If you have already >
2015 Mar 02
2
[LLVMdev] Stable Release Schedule: 3.5.2 and 3.6.1
Hi, Here is schedule for upcoming stable releases: 3.5.2 - This will be the last 3.5.x release. There was a critical bug fix that did not make it into 3.5.1, which made it necessary to do 3.5.2. I will accept other fixes, but the merge window will be very short: March 16 - Tag 3.5.2-rc1 and begin testsing March 25 - 3.5.2 release (If no regressions found during testing). 3.6.1 - Bug fixes
2017 Mar 27
5
4.0.1 Release Schedule + Need feedback for improving stable releases
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
2016 Sep 28
2
Xcode issues
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:13:35AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 28, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Rinaldini Julien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I’m using llvm+clang (+ a wrapper for swift that allow me to use my clang to compile swift files) inside Xcode and I have encountered two issues with the new clang 3.9 and
2015 May 11
8
[LLVMdev] 3.6.1 -rc1 has been tagged. Testing begins.
Hi, I have tagged the 3.6.1-rc1 so testing can begin. We can always use more testers, so if you are interested in helping, let me know. Instructions for validating an LLVM release can be found here: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html Reminder: We are using 3.6.0 as our baseline for regression testing. Thanks, Tom