[llvm-dev] [Release-testers] 12.0.1-rc1 release has been tagged

Tom Stellard via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 4 17:36:55 PDT 2021

On 6/3/21 12:23 PM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 6/2/21 2:40 AM, Michał Górny via llvm-dev wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 10:03 -0700, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>> On 5/28/21 1:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 00:15 -0700, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I've tagged the 12.0.1-rc1 release.  Testers may upload binaries and report results.
>>>> I've started testing, hit two bugs I've already reported for 12.0.0 RCs
>>>> and figured out I'm wasting my time.  It seems that LLVM reached
>>>> the point where releases are pushed through just for the sake of
>>>> releases and QA doesn't exist.
>>> Which bugs are these?
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49821
> The fix for this has been in main branch since May 4, with a request to merge into release/12.x, and yet the release candidate does not include this, despite the bug open as a 12.0.1 release blocker.
> Downstream we have our MIPS test suite disabled because of this bug. It was passing with LLVM 11.

Sorry, I missed this one.  The committer asked for us to wait until
the fix had been upstream for a while before backporting it, which
is why it was not backported right away.

In the future, if there is a bug you care about, I would recommend pinging
it once week if you aren't seeing movement on it.

>> Just to be clear, I'm not blaming you.  But the whole release testing
>> process is just getting more and more frustrating.
> I'm pretty frustrated over here too. What's the hurry on tagging releases? Can't we wait to tag releases until all the release blockers are fixed?

We usually don't have release blocking bugs.  I know it's a little confusing,
because we use the 'blocks' field in bugzilla, but this is really used to mark
bugs that we want to fix, not bugs that must be fixed.

> This is a compiler backend. Priority number one should be not introducing regressions. The timing of releases is not important at all in comparison.

I understand this position, but some people value a predictable release schedule
over more bug fixes from upstream and that's why we do time-based releases.

As I mentioned in the other mail, I think that moving to GitHub issues is
going to enable a lot of improvements in our release process.  I think
with better automation and more process transparency we'll be able to
get more bugs fixed and provide a better experience for bug reporters,
developers, and release managers.


> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list