LLVM/Clang/Compiler-RT tarballs version 7.0.0rc2

Hi,

I have seen you tagged 7.0.0rc2 in SVN, but [1] has no tarballs for downloading?
Can you please provide them?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
- Sedat -

[1] LLVM 7.0.0 Release Candidates
[2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2018-August/date.html

The answer is the same as two years ago: The tarballs are made available once ready. The release manager will usually send another email saying so, the last one said "[7.0.0 Release] rc1 has been tagged" (not "available").

For reference here are links to older discussions:
  - 3.9.1rc2: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/107777.html
  - 3.8.1: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/101562.html
  - 3.8(.0)rc2: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094935.html
  - 3.7.1: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/093603.html

Jonas

P.S.: I'm sorry if that sounds a bit harsh. But it's really frustrating to answer the same question again and again - especially to the very same person.

Yeah, I see.
You have an unusual development process seen from my POV.
IMHO you can provide the tarballs before the "binaries" are uploaded
which means "prebuilt binaries".
That could increase the quality of developing when different arch/os
maintainers give their OK.
But for 7.0.0rc1 I see only prebuilt binaries for...

* macOS
* FreeBSD10 AMD64
* Windows (32-bit)
* Windows (64-bit)

So giving an OK on different platforms than above listen ones is done via email?
I mean without providing prebuilt binaries?

- Sedat -

[1] LLVM 7.0.0 Release Candidates

Yeah, I see.
You have an unusual development process seen from my POV.

GNOME does the same, to pick one example: ThreePointTwentynine - GNOME Wiki!
Tarballs are due on Monday, official release and announcement are on Wednesday.

IMHO you can provide the tarballs before the "binaries" are uploaded
which means "prebuilt binaries".
That could increase the quality of developing when different arch/os
maintainers give their OK.

We had that discussion, please see older threads: It's just that there is some internal testing before uploading the tarballs for "public" testing.
For rc1 tagging was on August 3rd, upload of the tarballs on August 7th.

But for 7.0.0rc1 I see only prebuilt binaries for...

* macOS
* FreeBSD10 AMD64
* Windows (32-bit)
* Windows (64-bit)

clang+llvm-7.0.0-rc1-x86_64-linux-sles12.3.tar.xz is missing, probably an oversight. [ CC Hans ]

So giving an OK on different platforms than above listen ones is done via email?
I mean without providing prebuilt binaries?

Yes, there are some downstream projects and distributions reporting test results and possibly uploading the binaries to different infrastructures.
For example packages for Debian and Ubuntu live at http://apt.llvm.org/.

Jonas

Yeah, I see.
You have an unusual development process seen from my POV.

GNOME does the same, to pick one example:
ThreePointTwentynine - GNOME Wiki!
Tarballs are due on Monday, official release and announcement are on
Wednesday.

IMHO you can provide the tarballs before the "binaries" are uploaded
which means "prebuilt binaries".
That could increase the quality of developing when different arch/os
maintainers give their OK.

We had that discussion, please see older threads: It's just that there is
some internal testing before uploading the tarballs for "public" testing.
For rc1 tagging was on August 3rd, upload of the tarballs on August 7th.

But for 7.0.0rc1 I see only prebuilt binaries for...

* macOS
* FreeBSD10 AMD64
* Windows (32-bit)
* Windows (64-bit)

clang+llvm-7.0.0-rc1-x86_64-linux-sles12.3.tar.xz is missing, probably an
oversight. [ CC Hans ]

So giving an OK on different platforms than above listen ones is done via
email?
I mean without providing prebuilt binaries?

Yes, there are some downstream projects and distributions reporting test
results and possibly uploading the binaries to different infrastructures.
For example packages for Debian and Ubuntu live at http://apt.llvm.org/.

Thanks for the clarifications, Jonas.

I am in contact with the Debian maintainer who uploads to
<apt.llvm.org> and the official Debian repositories.
Debian/experimental offers a clang-7 (1:7~+rc2-1~exp1).

As I did my Linux kernel (last: v4.18.5) experiments with my selfmade
llvm-toolchain from Git...

# clang --version
clang version 7.0.0 (GitHub - llvm-mirror/clang: Mirror kept for legacy. Moved to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
deea4eee5de7c93740402afdb85a595635c78606)
(GitHub - llvm-mirror/llvm: Project moved to: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
98aa61ba49b54902a7afc27c9aa6c562646be76f)
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin

...I will do my 1st Linux v4.19-rc1 run with this one.

Be patient for the officially announced tarballs or try the packages
from Debian/experimental?
For now, I will not change my llvm-toolchain.

Thanks.

- Sedat -

[1] Debian -- Error

Yeah, I see.
You have an unusual development process seen from my POV.

GNOME does the same, to pick one example:
ThreePointTwentynine - GNOME Wiki!
Tarballs are due on Monday, official release and announcement are on
Wednesday.

IMHO you can provide the tarballs before the "binaries" are uploaded
which means "prebuilt binaries".
That could increase the quality of developing when different arch/os
maintainers give their OK.

We had that discussion, please see older threads: It's just that there is
some internal testing before uploading the tarballs for "public" testing.
For rc1 tagging was on August 3rd, upload of the tarballs on August 7th.

Technically speaking, we could publish the source tarballs straight
away after tagging, it's just that it's easier for me to publish the
sources, binaries and docs in one go. I'll think about changing my
process.

But for 7.0.0rc1 I see only prebuilt binaries for...

* macOS
* FreeBSD10 AMD64
* Windows (32-bit)
* Windows (64-bit)

clang+llvm-7.0.0-rc1-x86_64-linux-sles12.3.tar.xz is missing, probably an
oversight. [ CC Hans ]

It wasn't uploaded to the server. I've pinged Brian to see what happened.

[...]

We had that discussion, please see older threads: It's just that there is
some internal testing before uploading the tarballs for "public" testing.
For rc1 tagging was on August 3rd, upload of the tarballs on August 7th.

Technically speaking, we could publish the source tarballs straight
away after tagging, it's just that it's easier for me to publish the
sources, binaries and docs in one go. I'll think about changing my
process.

Thanks about reflecting on your (pre)release workflow.

- Sedat -

Thanks.

- sed@ -

[1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-August/125640.html
[2] LLVM 7.0.0 Release Candidates

As the FreeBSD port/package maintainer, it would be somewhat helpful for
me if you uploaded the sources at tagging time. Mostly it would mean
I'd be able to jump on an update as soon at the tagging announcement came
out. It's not a big deal one way or another another since Dimitry does
the main testing as part of keep the copy in the FreeBSD base system up
to date.

-- Brooks