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

[Tom Stellard via llvm-dev]

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.

-Tom

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