LGTM. Thanks Tom!

In D62353#1516323, @beanz wrote:

In D62353#1516322, @hintonda wrote:

Btw, where would you want to put them?

Pre-monorepo, it would depend on what the bot is building, but with the mono-repo we could just create a new top-level directory to contain them all. Name each file to match the bot config it runs.

Beanz if you can send me an example of what you think the directory layout should look like I'll try to implement one of these on the mono-repo and get a test bot running. Then folks could have an example to look at.

Perhaps if they existed, it might be easier to bot owners to use them.

I think bot owners need to create and maintain them. Today bot owners control what flags they pass to CMake and we shouldn't change that.

First off, thanks for offering to help make the website work correctly! This all looks pretty reasonable to me. I'm wondering though, would it be possible to break this patch up into a few smaller patches? Since we do not have any type of staging infrastructure for llvm.org, I would prefer we not change so many files all at once. I feel like three steps here might be appropriate:

1. Try with one file (one of the files with a one or two line change) to ensure the changes work as we expect them to.
2. Apply changes to the rest of the files with the exception of footer.incl.
3. Apply the last patch to footer.incl which adds the javascript bits in the footer (my experience tells me this is the most likely to break something, though the JS you have provided LGTM).

Hi,
I have added the recommonmark python package to the server. It should be available to the doc bot now so I would say go ahead and land this patch and let's see what happens.

Though my Buildbot foo is a bit rusty these days, this LGTM.

Hi,
It appears the commit related to this review has cause a bot failure on
Green Dragon. This failure was masked by an earlier failure which was
reverted a short time ago. Please have a look at:
http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage1-configure-RA/44030/ and
either revert your commit or notify me if you will be submitting a patch
within the next hour.

Eric,
Any chance you could have one more look at this and let me know if the
patch is acceptable?

I copied what Eric did here: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/commit/6878e852d1d26cca0abee3013822311cd894ca3e. I have tested this on our bots and the fix works fine.

I'm fine with the changes being made. We just need to coordinate a date & time for the cutover so we don't set Green Dragon ablaze.

So after locally reverting r313643 and then applying only the patch related to libcxx/cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake I was able to configure and build libcxx successfully.

Chris Matthews asked me to make the above revisions and then go ahead and commit.

Adjusted code per comments from cmatthews.

Based on the feedback I have received form Mehdi, I am going to abandon this revision and go refactor this so it makes more sense. Thanks for the feedback Mehdi!

cmatthews replied "LGTM" via email.

I will admit that I do not understand enough about how diff works to be confident that diff'ing the symbolic link to the binary would produce the same result as diff'ing the binary itself. It seems to. Probably dumb, but I wanted to be able to say with absolute certainty that I was diff'ing the just built binaries.

Removed unnecessary assertions.

Removed unnecessary assertions.

After review from silvas, used the asserts in a better manner. Also removed unneeded parenthesis from the lit_args join expression.

I applied the comments silvas provided and also adjusted the formatting of the shell_command for the last build step.

Galina,
I may have gone a bit overboard with the asserts, happy to hear your (or any other) opinion on the matter.

New Rule: Mike is no longer allowed to post patches after Midnight PST. This is a bad fix. I will go and rethink the proper solution with a clear head now.