[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 stable releases

[Tom Stellard]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:25:40PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> What's the state here?
> 
> There are three commits I've made to Clang that I'd like to see in the 3.4
> release branch if for no other reason than to help out folks bootstrapping
> on old Linux distributions with too-old installed versions of
> GCC/libstdc++. These are r199632, r199633, and r199769. Let me know if you
> can merge them or I should or how we can get a nice stable tree that folks
> can check out and build as the first step of getting a bootstrap.
> 

Hi Chandler,

I think we can start committing patches to the 3.4 branch even while
we finalize the details of the release process.  Assuming these patches
fall into the category of ABI compatible bug fixes, if you cc me and the
code owner on theses commit emails, I can commit them to the 3.4 branch
once the code owner approves.

-Tom

> 
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote:
> 
> > On 20 January 2014 16:34, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm much more concerned about platform testing and validation than I am
> >> the binaries.
> >>
> >
> > That's a good point. Distributions should trust our source branches
> > because we tested on the release platforms, not because our binary releases
> > are out.
> >
> >
> > As far as I understand, there only two "supported" or "first-tier"
> >> platforms:
> >> X86 and ARM.
> >
> >
> > Yes. That makes three architectures: x86, x86_64 and ARM32.
> >
> > ARM64, Mips, PPC and others still aren't "first-tier" so we don't need to
> > worry about them right now.
> >
> >
> > Do we cancel the release, or do we take the position
> >> that if no one is willing to provide testing resources for a platform,
> >> then it
> >> is not really worthy of "supported" or "first-tier" status.
> >>
> >
> > We can't cancel the status of first-tier because patch releases are not
> > yet official. Heck, even skipping an official release wouldn't necessarily
> > remove the status if we have buildbots, and extensive offline tests
> > elsewhere. So we can't play that card.
> >
> > Since both x86 and ARM communities are large enough, I don't think we'll
> > ever be without hands to at least build the release and run a test-suite.
> > That should give us enough peace of mind to progress with the release. But
> > as more platforms start joining the release process, we'll have to make
> > sure they can cope with the process when demand comes.
> >
> > Furthermore, as it stands, we have at least two people willing to build
> > and test for each platform. As a last resort, I could do all three
> > releases, since I have the hardware available, so we can still test the
> > patch release on all three major archs. Other people in this list can also
> > do the same, so I think that we're covered.
> >
> > cheers,
> > --renato
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> >