> On Feb 16, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Chris Bieneman <be...@apple.com > <mailto: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 > <http://bb.pgr.jp/builders>. They also > happily alert folks in IRC.
I’m aware of all this, and was on IRC when I landed the change on Friday, which is why I was surprised when I didn’t see any failures, but my commit was still reverted (hence my comment about assuming it was non-public). > >> 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. I definitely think we had different interpretations of the plan. Maybe we should be more explicit about timelines for transitions like this in the future. > >> >>> >>>> 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. I think you’re right, that at this point we are probably safe to assume all is well in the world. I didn’t really feel that this was the case when I started sending emails on this thread earlier this morning. I’m not sure what things are like in your office, but Apple’s campus is a bit of a ghost town before 10am on Monday mornings. > >> >>> >>>> 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.”) Don’t take it personally. I kinda view anyone not using Vim and Ninja as their development environment as impoverished :-). -Chris > > ~Aaron
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
