On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:51 AM Chris Lattner via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 6:01 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 3:53 PM Chris Lattner via cfe-dev
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
>> wrote:
>>
>> Specific to the dev lis
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:41 PM James Y Knight via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:19 PM James Y Knight wrote:
>>
>> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to me how
>> to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list mode",
>> which soun
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 6:20 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev
wrote:
>
> I've just tried out discourse for the first time. It is not clear to me how
> to use it to replace mailing lists. It has a setting "mailing list mode",
> which sounds like the right thing -- sending all messages via email. Exc
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:35 PM Mehdi AMINI wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 4:24 AM Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:24 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Statement:
>> >
>> > Our current code review policy states[1]:
>> >
>> > “Code rev
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:56 AM wrote:
>
> > You're right that doing post-commit reviews on Phabricator is not
> > seamless---the rG link is not included anywhere. Hopefully that could be
> > fixed with some Phabricator configuration tweaks, like sending the commit
> > email to the -commits list.
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:24 PM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> Statement:
>
> Our current code review policy states[1]:
>
> “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
> code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the
> relevant project’
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:13 AM Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> After almost six years and twelve major releases (3.6 through 11), I
> have decided to step down as release manager.
Thank you so much for all your hard work as release manager and
congratulations on so many successful releases!
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:22 AM Renato Golin via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 23:10, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Maybe even stronger than "is allowed to commit", I think we should
> > really think about it as the release manager owning the branch, and
> > has f
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> On 02/10/2020 07:40 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > On 01/30/2020 12:47 PM, David Major wrote:
> >> Would it make sense to wait until 10.0.0 is released, in order to keep all
> >> the blockers in one place?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I think
My concern about switching is that I will now need to use two issue
trackers instead of one when doing things like searching for related bugs.
~Aaron
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 1:31 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 01/30/2020 10:24 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> On 10/24/2019 07:54 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> > We held a round-table at the llvm dev conference about what other pieces of
> > Github infrastructure we may want to use. This thread in particular is
> > about swit
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 4:51 PM Zachary Turner via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
> This has been on my mind for quite some time, but recently it's been popping
> up more and more seeing some of the issues people have run into.
>
> Before people get the wrong idea, let me make one thing clear. **I am not
> pr
Thank you for your continuing efforts on the Code of Conduct! I
appreciate the efforts and strongly support this direction.
~Aaron
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of
> disc
Thank you for raising this question! I think 3.10 makes sense until we
have a strong enough breaking change (in anything, not just LLVM bit
code) to warrant bumping to 4.0.
~Aaron
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev
wrote:
> Breaking this out into a separate thread since i
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> I think we should start two other threads: one about git tooling on Windows
> and one about infrastructure problems migrating to git.
Some developers on Windows prefer to use GUI tools like TortoiseSVN to
command line tools for version control
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:25 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> IMO, if we're switching to git, we should just be clear up front that all
> committers will be expected to switch to git as well -- or at least, if they
> want to use something else (e.g. mercurial's git bridge/etc), that it's
> their own pro
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 1 June 2016 at 19:36, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> Despite people's reservations of a git-only repository?
>
> Hi Aaron, not at all!
>
> I was especially vague on my first email to make sure SVN folks would
> be shoved on the side, but John had
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
wrote:
> On 1 June 2016 at 17:02, John Criswell wrote:
>> Do you have a set of volunteers lined up to do such a migration? Getting
>> people willing to do the migration will obviously be key, and that was the
>> one thing I didn't see in t
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 31 May 2016 at 21:24, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> Are we sure that github's svn integration works with common tools on
>> Windows, like TortoiseSVN?
>
> That's a good question. Can you try them out and report back?
From my very simple testing
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils
> of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussion was
> that moving to a Git-only solution would have some disvantages, but
> many adv
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> I had hoped to tag rc3 today (I feel like I've said this a lot
> lately), but it's at least really, really close. I'm waiting for:
>
> - r261297 - Implement the likely resolution of core issue 253.
> Still in post-commit review.
>
> - D175
21 matches
Mail list logo
