On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Chris Bieneman <be...@apple.com> wrote:
> > 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> 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 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. > IIRC we actually discussed a pretty concrete process for MSVC min version upgrades when we upped to 2012. I can't seem to find the thread though. -- Sean > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm...@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
