Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [8.0.0 Release] rc1 has been tagged

2019-01-30 Thread Diana Picus via lldb-dev
ARM looks good. Uploaded. 358fc71b8021eddbb1b93142bc09f1ad698677a6 clang+llvm-8.0.0-rc1-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz Cheers, Diana On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 05:45, Brian Cain via Release-testers wrote: > > > SLES and Ubuntu 14.04 tarballs uploaded. Sorry for the delay. I will try > and find

Re: [lldb-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 5:33 PM Tom Stellard via lldb-dev wrote: > > Hi, > > As part of the migration of LLVM's source code to github, we need to update > our developer policy with instructions about how to interact with the new git > repository. There are a lot of different topics we will need

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev > wrote: > > 5. When a new feature is broken up into a patch series, the series should be > rebased then immediately merged to help identify the individual patches in > the history graph. Typically the LLVM development model

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread David Greene via lldb-dev
Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev writes: > How about: > > Require a rebase, followed by git merge --no-ff > > This creates a linear history, but with extra null merge commits > delimiting each related series of patches. > > I believe it is compatible with bisect. > >

Re: [lldb-dev] [monorepo] Much improved downstream zipping tool available

2019-01-30 Thread David Greene via lldb-dev
Björn Pettersson A writes: > In llvm (split) we have: > > UL4->UL3->UL2->UL1->UL0 >\ > ...->DL2->DL1 > > In clang (split) we have: > > UC4->UC3->UC2->UC1->UC0 >\ > ...->DC2->DC1 > > > DL1 is a commit that updates the clang submodule

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread Eric Christopher via lldb-dev
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:42 PM David Greene via cfe-dev wrote: > > Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev writes: > > > How about: > > > > Require a rebase, followed by git merge --no-ff > > > > This creates a linear history, but with extra null merge commits > > delimiting each related series of patches. >

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread via lldb-dev
> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David > Greene via cfe-dev > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 3:52 PM > To: Jeremy Lakeman > Cc: llvm-dev; LLDB Dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org) > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev]

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread Philip Reames via lldb-dev
Strongly in favor of #1. If we decide to move away from #1, I strongly believe it should be done well after the github migration.  (i.e. lets not change everything at once!) Philip On 1/29/19 2:33 PM, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: Hi, As part of the migration of LLVM's source code to

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

2019-01-30 Thread David Greene via lldb-dev
Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev writes: > 4. Each reviewed bug / feature must be rebased onto the current "known > good" commit, merged into a "probably good" commit, tested by build > bots, and only then pushed to trunk. Keeping trunk's history more > usable, with most bad patches reworked and

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-30 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
This would be great. All of these tests have always been disabled on Windows so converting them to lit tests would increase test coverage there as well On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:00 PM Alex Langford via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for bringing this up. I'd like to

Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-30 Thread Alex Langford via lldb-dev
+1 Thanks for bringing this up. I'd like to see this happen! - Alex On 1/30/19, 5:33 PM, "lldb-dev on behalf of Davide Italiano via lldb-dev" wrote: As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of `pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3. This is the

[lldb-dev] [RFC]The future of pexpect

2019-01-30 Thread Davide Italiano via lldb-dev
As you probably know (I didn’t), lldb embeds its own version of `pexpect-2.4`, which doesn’t support python3. This is the (relatively short) list of tests relying on pyexpect: testcases/tools/lldb-mi/syntax/TestMiSyntax.py:import pexpect # 7 (EOF)

[lldb-dev] [8.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 source, docs, and binaries available

2019-01-30 Thread Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev
Hello everyone, Source, docs, and binaries for LLVM-8.0.0-rc1 are now available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/8.0.0/#rc1 Please try it out and report any problems as bugs marked as blockers of https://llvm.org/pr40331 Thanks, Hans ___ lldb-dev