On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chris Bieneman <be...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Chris Bieneman <be...@apple.com> wrote: >>> The plan as stated was: >>> >>> 1) Loop in cfe-dev and lldb-dev (Done!) >>> 2) Wait until this email fully circulates in digests and LLVM Weekly so >>> that everyone who has an objection can voice it >>> 3) If there are no objections, Commit a change to the CMake build which >>> errors on old MSVC versions >>> 4) Revert and fix buildbots >>> 5) Repeat 3 & 4 until no issues >> >> It's my understanding that we're past step 5 currently, and waiting to >> do step 6. > > When I landed the change originally I saw no failures from any public bots. I > assume Takumi reverted it because there was a failure on a non-public bot. > Since the change re-landed on Sunday, I don’t think it is really safe to > assume all non-public bots had been migrated.
Takumi's bots are public bots: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders. They also happily alert folks in IRC. > I’m not trying to stand in the way of progress here, but I do feel like we’ve > kinda thrown the plan to the wind here. I think we're following different plans; I think the progress d0k and I have made was done following the plan. I may be wrong with my understanding of the plan, however. > >> >>> 6) Once the change is live for a week with no issues, update the >>> documentation to reflect the minimum required MSVC version as 2013 >>> >>> This really doesn’t make sense if we are landing changes requiring MSVC >>> 2013 between steps 3&5. Reverting as needed now that we have a stack of >>> changes that is piling up isn’t really viable anymore. >> >> You are correct, if we need to revert, it would be challenging. My >> understanding is that we do not need to revert any further, as >> Chapuni's bots were the last ones that needed specific attention. The >> lld and lldb bots may require further attention, but not certain >> whether they require this change to be reverted? Those owners would >> have to speak up with what they'd like to see happen. > > Hopefull there are no issues, but since this was re-landed on a Sunday when a > lot of people aren’t around and watching I’m nervous that we may have broken > things when people weren’t looking. I've not seen any bot-related issues arise in email or IRC yet, and I suspect we would have tickled *something* by now if there were major problems. > >> >>> So I assume the new plan to just make anyone using MSVC update or they >>> can’t build anymore. >> >> They couldn't build after step 3 anyway (almost any source changes >> require CMake to rebuild the solutions, so any source fetches getting >> newer code would also get the CMake files requiring a newer version of >> MSVC before the solution can be generated). The repetition part of the >> above steps is for build bots, not all users (though, obviously, if >> there are major users who are stuck and didn't realize it until now, >> we would have to figure out how to handle that). > > Right, but step 4 is to revert that change. We’ve now basically made it > prohibitively difficult to revert. Agreed. > Look, I want to use variadic templates as much as the next guy, I’m just also > wanting to be considerate of our unfortunate colleagues using MSVC. As one of the people who was opposed to this change originally specifically for that consideration, I appreciate it (though I would not describe us as "unfortunate.") ~Aaron _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
