[llvm-dev] LLVM Releases: Upstream vs. Downstream / Distros

Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 12 08:47:51 PDT 2016

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:40:44 +0100
David Chisnall via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The end result is that shortly after a release (sometimes every alternate release) is branched a load of downstream projects update to the new APIs, test things, and find a bunch of regressions that have been sitting in the tree for months.  We then have to scrabble to bisect and try to track them down.
> TL;DR version: If we want downstream people to test ToT, then we need to make updating LLVM library consumers to ToT far less painful than it is now.

+1 to this.  As a developer of llvmlite and numba, it would be
counter-productive for me to try to follow the LLVM ToT, as opposed to
migrate after a X.Y.1 release as we currently do.



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list