This is a followup of the review comments in D144499.
Details
- Reviewers
ldionne philnik var-const - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG4ef1393e1b35: [libc++][doc] Updates the tasks to do for a release.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
libcxx/docs/ReleaseProcedure.rst | ||
---|---|---|
12 | I considered that, but left it out on purpose. GCC's release schedule is between releases so there is no nice match with our releases. Reconsidering it might make sense to do that in the preparation. For Unicode I also don't intend to wait until we prepare the LLVM release, instead I intend to update once I'm aware of the release. That way we at least won't forget about it. | |
85–108 | We have, but somehow things from the list are removed by the release managers after branching. Based on your char_traits question and D150580 we need to have a better way to keep track of this. I'm open to other suggestions. | |
88–95 |
libcxx/docs/ReleaseProcedure.rst | ||
---|---|---|
12 | Yeah, I think it's fine to keep the release preparation phase a bit hand-wavy. | |
72 | Could we also define a single TODO LLVM xy style to make it easier to grep for that? | |
85–108 | Wouldn't it be enough to communicate to the release managers that they shouldn't touch the Upcoming Deprecations and Removals list? Or maybe move that section into a different file that is included there? (IDK if that's possible with Sphinx) I don't think we had that section when _LIBCPP_ABI_OLD_LOGNORMAL_DISTRIBUTION was introduced, and I think the section already massively helps with removing stuff in-time. | |
88–95 | Could you re-add this to the release notes? |
Thanks for working on this!
libcxx/docs/ReleaseProcedure.rst | ||
---|---|---|
34 | ||
43 | If we have annotations like LLVM RELEASE bump, does it make sense to carry that list around? Duplicating the information IMO is going to create confusion and they'll get out of sync, so I think we should pick one. CC @tstellar | |
72 | I like that! So the documentation could say "Search for TODO(LLVM-<version>)" maybe? I don't care about how it's spelled, but we could document it right here and start doing it right away. | |
88–95 | Instead, I think what we should do here is have version-specific release notes and keep the latest N versions in the repo (probably N = 1). That would actually solve other problems as well, such as merge conflicts during the early branching when we cherry-pick stuff to the release branch. Then we could easily obtain this information without having to copy-paste anything, which is going to be error-prone. |
LGTM % nit! Leaving final approval to Louis.
libcxx/utils/libcxx/test/features.py | ||
---|---|---|
29 | Same below. |
libcxx/docs/ReleaseProcedure.rst | ||
---|---|---|
80–89 | I am not sure that we should keep this section now. |
libcxx/docs/ReleaseProcedure.rst | ||
---|---|---|
12 | I added a note, but more generic for all our compilers. | |
43 | I agree if we have that we can link that, just to make it easier to find for us. I originally copied this from the contribution page. | |
72 | I used your suggestion and adjusted the existing TODOs. | |
80–89 | This is indeed an unwanted left over. | |
85–108 | For now I just added an item for us to copy it back. | |
88–95 | For now I moved it to the release notes under a LLVM 18 section. I think it would make sense to do Upcoming Deprecations and Removals ---------------------------------- LLVM 18 ~~~~~~~ ... list of items LLVM 19 ... list of items I think we can just copy that after the release managers removed it then we don't need to keep N files. |
Maybe also check that GCC is on the latest version?