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

Sun Jan 13 11:20:36 PST 2013

Pawel,

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

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.

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.

Thank you again for your hard work here,

Tanya

On Jan 13, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:

> Anton,
> 
>> Pawel,
>> 
>> We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but
>> I think you should understand the implications of your actions.
>> 
>> You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the
>> ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and
>> rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to
>> the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc.
>> 
>> Even worse, you did this silently. Without any announcement, with any
>> e-mail to llvm-dev, etc. And all this at the same time when people do
>> wide announcement for e.g. 30 mins of restart of buildbot master ro 10
>> minute restart of web server.
>> 
>> What you did it definitely inacceptable for release manager of such
>> big project as LLVM. So, may I kindly ask you to revert the tarball
>> back within next 24 hours an write and entry to New section on the
>> website. If you want to include the changes name them 3.2.1 or 3.2a
>> and write an entry on the website. This is the only way how you can
>> fix all the weird stuff you done in a moment.
> 
> 
> All I can say is if you did not get involved in the release but you
> depend on it don't cry wolf now.
> 
> Before we get any more personal read carefully my reply to Brooks
> message.
> 
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-January/058088.html
> 
> Paweł
> 
>> 
>> All: If anyone has the old taball + sig please let me know where I can
>> download them to replace the current ones if Pawel will fail to do so.
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski
>>>>>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer
>>>>>>>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen)
>>>>>>>> <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Pawel,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory
>>>>>>>>> still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update
>>>>>>>>> the release tarball is a good idea? Also could you remove it
>>>>>>>>> from the trunk?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please do not, under no circumstances, change the 3.2 release
>>>>>>>> tarballs at this point. They are mirrored around the world now
>>>>>>>> with cryptographic hashes and signatures. Changing them will
>>>>>>>> break things for many people, especially for an extremely
>>>>>>>> minor thing like an empty directory.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now
>>>>>>>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only
>>>>>>>> make matters worse.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The tarballs were changed?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> r172208
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user
>>>>>> complained about distfile changes.  IMO, this revision should be
>>>>>> reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1 tarball
>>>>>> rather than screwing all the downstream consumers who's
>>>>>> infrastructure exists to detect trojan'd tarballs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tarball is signed, it is not trjoan.
>>>>> Your infrastructure should be able to deal with it?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Many of these environments rely on checking against a known-good checksum.
>>>> If a tarball is replaced at the source, that checksum changes.  Once a
>>>> release is cut, that particular release should never change.  If a change
>>>> is necessary, some sort of point release (3.2.1) is preferable, so anyone
>>>> wanting 3.2 still gets the old binary with the old checksum.
>>> 
>>> Current process does not have any provision for any more releases
>>> beyond 3.2.
>>> 
>>> Frankly, anybody who depends on the release should have been
>>> involved in it during RC1,RC2 or RC3 at the latest.
>>> 
>>> Paweł
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Brooks
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paweł
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev