similar to: Rsync 3.3.0 released

On 11/19/19 9:09 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: Note there is also Slack, which does not have these problems. Not sure why that keeps being overlooked My understanding is this is because Slack does not have good moderation tools. I'm unfamiliar with further details in this regard. -Hal On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:07 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at roblox.com<mailto:zturner at

But is it better or worse than IRC in this regard? On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:49 PM Daniel Chapiesky via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Daniel Chapiesky <dchapiesky2 at gmail.com> > Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for >

David, I'm glad you mentioned Discord's T&Cs. I'm not generally concerned about these kinds of things, but Discord's seems particularly aggressive. Particularly the phrase "perpetual, nonexclusive, transferable, royalty-free, sublicensable, and worldwide license" is... a lot. Since LLVM is a permissively licensed project I assume many of our contributors care about

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 07:29, Kristina Brooks via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > While I understand the difficulty regarding mailing lists especially > if one isn't used to setting up mailboxes and filters to classify and > label emails and do think a web forum may be easier to use, I would > have concerns over Discord. Unlike IRC which has a fairly open

Hi everyone, There are a number of issues with the current name of the Clang project: * It is prone to incorrect type setting, typically as CLang, CLANG, or most commonly c̦҉̫̘̺̹̖̗͒͆͋̈̃̇߯l߲҉̷̡̰̖͈̤̺͒҆̾̚͡͝a̺̹͍̔߭͠ͅn͋́͡g̱߫̉ * The C++ compiler ends in the string "g++", which causes problems for compiler wrapper scripts * The name has been used by a kickstarter project

FWIW I'm a fan of using open-source stuff for open-source projects. Discourse looks open source, but Discord doesn't as far as I can tell (?). On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks, > > I sent the message quoted below to llvm-dev@ just now, but it applies to > the whole community so sending an FYI

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:32 AM David Tellenbach via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > +1 from my side for using "faster" or "more direct" communication channels > such > as Discord (no strong opinion on the choice of any particular tool here) > for > informal chats and discussions on a "support level". This is

> > | mailing lists for longer-form discussions are unfamiliar, difficult, > and often intimidating for newcomers > > Um… what? While I know (via my own children) that folks nowadays use > multiple avenues of communication, it’s **really** hard to imagine email > as a **mechanism** being unfamiliar/difficult/intimidating. Moving to a > new mechanism wouldn’t alter the

There *are* open-source Discord clients, 3rd party tools and the like. The corporation behind Discord is just not authorising you legally to use any of those tools at hand. There are rarely any technical barriers or countermeasures, though. Roman Lebedev via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. nov. 18., H, 16:08): > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:10 PM Nico Weber via

The lists are working well for the people who are already invested in the community though - as was identified by Chandler they aren't working as well for new people. I'm an insanely confident Scotsman with just about zero fear of any/all social situations, and I've always found this mailing list to be utterly terrifying (thus I've been a 10 year mostly-lurker). My fear

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:18 PM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 08:44, Whisperity via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There *are* open-source Discord clients, 3rd party tools and the like. > > This is a big uphill fight that is rarelly worthy. Not to mention > privacy guarantees and terms and conditions

So I've gotten excluding paths to work as a standalone command. When I paste this into a script however, it ignores the exclusions. Any advice? rsync -aXvr --times --links --exclude={'*.vdi','*.vmdk','*.ova','*.qcow2','.config/discord/'} /home/path/ user at nas:/NAS/HOME/destination/ Are there supposed to be some kind of brackets around this?

Hello everyone, *Short version:*I've set up an LLVM Discord server for real time chat (similar to IRC) and an LLVM Discourse server for forums (similar to email lists): https://discord.gg/xS7Z362 https://llvm.discourse.group/ Please join and use these new services. They are only partially set up and still very new, so don't hesitate to improve them and/or reach out to this thread with

Slack's community moderation features are pretty terrible - it's simply not set up for managing public-facing communities; it's set up for managing private workplace team collaboration.  The best way to try to explain the features which are missing are to look at something like the Matrix moderation guide (https://matrix.org/docs/guides/moderation/); many of these features are

Hi, This is mostly intended for the maintainers to read. What's intended way to actually get patches merged into rsync? I've tried: - Mailing list posts - GitHub PRs --ignore-non-existing-directory https://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2015-November/030455.html https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync-patches/issues/8 https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/pull/595 TCP options:

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:00 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have much personal interest here - but my understanding was > that there was/is a fair bit of pushback to fragmenting the > communications channels to discord before there's a more general > buy-in to switch over across the project? (perhaps I'm misremembering > the previous

If I am not mistaken, there are two things that are becoming clear: 1. For email, nobody seems to be against Discourse as long as the mailing lists are still a supported way to participate. So this seems non-controversial. 2. For IRC, people seem to be happy with switching to a more modern solution, but Discord is largely disliked by a significant portion of respondents. So perhaps we can focus

Hi Vishal, Ruijie, Thanks for your interest in the project. To get started, the first task would be to merge the 5 patches on top of trunk llvm. The list of patches are listed in the project description: http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#llvm_mergesim Please create an account in llvm phabricator (reviews.llvm.org) if you haven't already, and put your patches there. Let me know if you have

Hi, I am seeing an LLVM build failure with recent LLD on x86 like: [...] lib/libLLVMCodeGen.a lib/libLLVMBitWriter.a lib/libLLVMScalarOpts.a lib/libLLVMAgg ressiveInstCombine.a lib/libLLVMInstCombine.a lib/libLLVMTransformUtils.a lib/libLLVMDebugInfoDWARF.a lib/lib LLVMMCDisassembler.a lib/libLLVMExecutionEngine.a lib/libLLVMTarget.a lib/libLLVMAnalysis.a lib/libLLVMProfil eData.a

Hi All, In the interests of improving visibility into ORC JIT development I'm going to try writing weekly status updates for the community. I hope they will provide insight into the design and state of development of LLVM's JIT APIs, as well as serving as a convenient space for discussions among LLVM's large and growing community of JIT API users. The length and detail will vary