[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 stable releases
renato.golin at linaro.org
Wed Jan 22 01:26:49 PST 2014
On 22 January 2014 08:57, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> I don't think there is any need to rebase or send merge requests etc...
> They'll apply cleanly, or I can manually merge them if need be. The
> question is not how to merge them but *if* we should merge them, and if
> someone will create tags / release numbers to track this.
That's what I meant by "merge request", not if they *would* apply, but if
they *should* be applied. ;)
It wasn't clear from my first email, I apologise, but I'm trying to come up
with a process where we can easily detect, either now and later if you
search the list, which patches are being proposed for back-porting. Today,
we use "[PATCH]" for trunk, maybe we should have something like "[3.4.1]"
or "[PATCH 3.4.1]" for the back-ports.
The current release process is a bit confused in that we don't have a clear
idea of which patches are being applied to each release candidate, because
they're all spread out in the list without a clear identification, normally
just copying the release manager, or waiting for him/her to pick it up from
the discussion. I'd like to reduce this overhead by having clear semantics,
so that the release manager could just filter for a specific pattern and be
sure to have caught all back-port patches.
That'd also make it easier to write the change log, just by filtering
emails on a mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev