[llvm-dev] RFC: Release qualification criteria

[Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev]

Hi Tom,

You hit exactly the questions that are also going through my mind. To add
to the two questions:
- What is the testing strategy for LLVM (ie. who tests for which bugs
when)?
- What do we expect from the people contributing patches?
- Do we want to also enforce some of these checks/tests on EVERY patch to
master or a release branch (ie. enforced pre-merge testing)?

And the meta question:
What's the process to create such an agreement?

Best,
Christian


On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:59 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm splitting this discussion off of my RFC for release process
> changes.
>
> We currently have no official release qualification criteria.  In
> other words, we don't have any blocking tests that need to pass in
> order to make a new release.
>
> We do time-based releases, which is not always compatible with having
> quality-based criteria for tagging a final release.  So, I think another
> way to look at this issue is to talk about what kinds of CI testing we
> have for trunk and if there are any additional kinds of
> testing (e.g. compile-time performance) that we want to prioritize.
>
> So, for the purposes of this discussion, I see 2 main questions:
>
> 1. Should we define some set of blocking tests that need to pass before a
> release
>    can happen?
>
> 2. What gaps do we currently have in our CI testing?
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200525/82de26bd/attachment-0001.html>