[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

Pawel Wodnicki root at 32bitmicro.com
Sun Jan 13 14:49:37 PST 2013


 Tanya,

> Pawel,
> 
> First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise.

 Nothing was said so nothing to worry about.

> 
> I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort.
> 

 No need to apologize for anything, the were a lot of changes for the
3.2 release and not everything can be captured in process documentation.
Bill spent a lot time giving me pointers on the release which I really
appreciate. However, if I am managing the release then I take full
responsibility for the decisions. At the same time one can reasonably
expect that anybody who is depending on the release would at least
contact release manager before the release happens!

 Which brings us to the collaborative effort. I was working with this
assumption but it turned out to be not what really happened.
Frankly there was no collaborative effort!

 Not a single, I'll repeat again not a single project or OS that
supposedly critically depends on the clang+llvm distribution
has helped with the release, either testing or building
binaries or just letting me know they exist!

 I think this is the real problem.


> You are correct that we do not do "dot" releases. There has long been debate on this and we just don't have the man power to accomplish such a task. This is why we have a relatively short release process.
> 

> However, we do not change the tarballs after the release has been "shipped". I remember once we did have a critical issue that caused us to a quick "reship" of a tarball, but we labeled it 3.Xa" to denote the new tarball. 
> 
> So I ask that the changes be reverted and then hopefully we can just move forward from this misunderstanding.
> 

 It was not a misunderstanding, I have made a decision to re-ship
based on the information I had at the time. What is interesting
is that the timing of my commit was such that it has got almost
immediately out before I had a chance to send the announcement.

 Anyway, both versions of the tarball are available from the the SVN.
I do not see a technical reason of not being able to pull one or the
other. At this point reverting the commit might cause even more "harm"
then good so perhaps we should consult this with wider LLVM community.

Considering that my role as LLVMRM has effectively ended on Dec 21st
I will be happy to "finalize" the release once we reach a consensus.


> Thank you again for your hard work here,
> 
> Tanya
> 

PaweĊ‚






More information about the llvm-dev mailing list