owner stringclasses 14
values | repo stringclasses 14
values | id int64 116k 4.61B | issue_number int32 1 181k | author stringlengths 1 39 | body stringlengths 1 262k | created_at timestamp[us]date 2000-06-06 02:40:44 2026-06-02 20:16:18 | updated_at timestamp[us]date 2000-06-06 02:40:44 2026-06-02 20:22:56 | reactions unknown | author_association stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,646,921 | 88,754 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T17:25:57 | 2026-04-30T17:25:57 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,357,600,528 | 81,376 | bkhouri | https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-format/pull/1197
@swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-01T03:14:30 | 2026-05-01T03:14:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,358,497,199 | 88,769 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci test windows | 2026-05-01T08:26:30 | 2026-05-01T08:26:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,317,516 | 88,664 | keith | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-29T23:50:42 | 2026-04-29T23:50:42 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,350,066,039 | 88,729 | meg-gupta | @swift-ci test macOS platform | 2026-04-30T06:03:55 | 2026-04-30T06:03:55 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,127,247 | 88,749 | eeckstein | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T09:04:21 | 2026-04-30T09:04:21 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,185,963 | 88,713 | clintonpi | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T09:13:37 | 2026-04-30T09:13:37 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,352,995,655 | 88,228 | Xazax-hun | @swift-ci please smoke test macOS | 2026-04-30T13:47:48 | 2026-04-30T13:47:48 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,775,780 | 88,523 | vsarunas | OK, could you please trigger tests with static constants instead? Or is a change needed to the SIL test instead?
Do you think it be possible to merge this before 6.4 gets branched? | 2026-04-30T17:45:18 | 2026-04-30T17:45:18 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,357,177,838 | 88,747 | glessard | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-01T00:56:16 | 2026-05-01T00:56:16 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,861,543 | 88,735 | eeckstein | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T05:11:23 | 2026-04-30T05:11:23 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,977,379 | 88,702 | glessard | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T05:42:30 | 2026-04-30T05:42:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,638,404 | 88,622 | Xazax-hun | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T10:21:51 | 2026-04-30T10:21:51 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,839,519 | 88,757 | justice-adams-apple | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T15:32:42 | 2026-04-30T15:32:42 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,406,809 | 88,765 | keith | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T19:02:10 | 2026-04-30T19:02:10 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,157,294 | 88,727 | hnrklssn | I think we're getting deep enough into the weeds here that we ought to benchmark compile times and memory usage to see if these caches are actually significant, before investing too much effort into cache invalidation strategies. Would be good to have a ClangImporter performance harness for other things as well. | 2026-04-30T21:06:52 | 2026-04-30T21:06:52 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,357,588,174 | 81,376 | bkhouri | https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-format/pull/1197
@swift-ci smoke test | 2026-05-01T03:11:09 | 2026-05-01T03:11:09 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,318,881 | 88,747 | glessard | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T02:40:48 | 2026-04-30T02:40:48 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,661,626 | 88,243 | carlpeto | This should be fixed by the same PR that fixed #88578 | 2026-04-30T10:25:30 | 2026-04-30T10:25:30 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,900,636 | 88,622 | Xazax-hun | @swift-ci please smoke test Windows | 2026-04-30T17:59:42 | 2026-04-30T17:59:42 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,273,517 | 88,480 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please test source compatibility | 2026-04-30T18:40:36 | 2026-04-30T18:40:36 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,474,153 | 88,766 | Azoy | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T22:04:29 | 2026-04-30T22:04:29 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,352,928,932 | 88,746 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test windows | 2026-04-30T13:38:34 | 2026-04-30T13:38:34 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,903,716 | 88,523 | vsarunas | @Azoy , could you help with the SIL check?
I dropped the State enum in favour of 3 constants instead to make this pass.
```
23:55:12 # .---command stderr------------
23:55:12 # | /home/build-user/swift/test/SILOptimizer/static_atomics.swift:28:17: error: CHECK-LABEL: expected string not found in input
23:55:12... | 2026-04-30T15:41:13 | 2026-04-30T15:41:13 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,439,799 | 88,727 | Xazax-hun | Do we know when the memory behind the cached pointers are being reclaimed? Could we invalidate the caches at that point? That would help us still get the benefits of the caching without the correctness issues. | 2026-04-30T09:51:47 | 2026-04-30T09:51:47 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,992,813 | 88,749 | eeckstein | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-30T15:54:15 | 2026-04-30T15:54:15 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,783,587 | 88,523 | Azoy | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T17:46:15 | 2026-04-30T17:46:15 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,357,124,652 | 88,772 | xedin | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-01T00:40:34 | 2026-05-01T00:40:34 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,358,570,393 | 88,769 | MaxDesiatov | @al45tair macOS and Linux CI checks are green here, which I'd hope is sufficient to claim that the fix in https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/commit/bafde8d720ecffae475c66825eeed108811e386d is valid? | 2026-05-01T08:49:28 | 2026-05-01T08:49:28 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,349,119 | 88,743 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-29T23:54:50 | 2026-04-29T23:54:50 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,245,981 | 88,656 | gottesmm | @swift-ci test windows platform | 2026-04-30T02:19:33 | 2026-04-30T02:19:33 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,526,924 | 86,082 | Bryce-MW | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T03:39:19 | 2026-04-30T03:39:19 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,436,587 | 88,632 | carlpeto | @swift-ci please test windows platform | 2026-04-30T09:51:16 | 2026-04-30T09:51:16 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,218,841 | 88,743 | kavon | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T21:17:24 | 2026-04-30T21:17:24 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,377,169 | 88,488 | al45tair | @swift-ci Please smoke test Windows platform | 2026-04-30T09:42:16 | 2026-04-30T09:42:16 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,637,809 | 88,615 | finagolfin | This pull probably [broke building the Android SDK on the trunk snapshot Windows toolchain CI](https://ci-external.swift.org/job/swift-main-windows-toolchain/2069/console), as it was working before this was merged:
```
ld.lld: error: T:\Program Files\Swift\Platforms\Android.platform\Developer\SDKs\Android.sdk\usr\lib... | 2026-04-30T10:21:46 | 2026-04-30T10:21:46 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,352,213,219 | 79,621 | finagolfin | Given the lack of response to my questions about this pull and the issue laying out the many problems with this new approach, #79657, closing this now, as it appears progress on getting the new `-sysroot`-oriented cross-compilation model working is not happening, eg swiftlang/swift-driver#2077. | 2026-04-30T11:52:47 | 2026-04-30T11:52:47 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,352,992,614 | 88,707 | Xazax-hun | @swift-ci please smoke test macOS | 2026-04-30T13:47:25 | 2026-04-30T13:47:25 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,645,701 | 88,769 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T22:41:10 | 2026-04-30T22:41:10 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,993,448 | 88,162 | xedin | @swift-ci please test | 2026-05-01T00:08:14 | 2026-05-01T00:08:14 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,358,116,142 | 88,775 | compnerd | @swift-ci please test Windows platform | 2026-05-01T06:16:02 | 2026-05-01T06:16:02 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,575,383 | 88,702 | glessard | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T00:32:53 | 2026-04-30T00:32:53 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,758,684 | 88,576 | compnerd | Again, I'd rather keep with the version that upstream ran on that particular release, which is 3.10. | 2026-04-30T15:22:16 | 2026-04-30T15:22:16 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,967,028 | 88,758 | Steelskin | @swift-ci please build toolchain windows platform | 2026-04-30T15:50:23 | 2026-04-30T15:50:23 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,694,514 | 88,523 | Azoy | I think the enum actually didn't matter here because this optimizes as intended: https://swift.godbolt.org/z/v3sesTYKz | 2026-04-30T17:33:42 | 2026-04-30T17:33:42 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,886,868 | 88,760 | Xazax-hun | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T17:58:03 | 2026-04-30T17:58:03 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,776,799 | 88,739 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T23:08:45 | 2026-04-30T23:08:45 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,995,625 | 88,162 | xedin | @CognitiveDisson could you please update the description to use a nomination template since we are in convergence at the moment? | 2026-05-01T00:08:47 | 2026-05-01T00:08:47 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,862,725 | 88,735 | eeckstein | @swift-ci Please Test Source Compatibility Release | 2026-04-30T05:11:44 | 2026-04-30T05:11:44 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,012,812 | 88,761 | compnerd | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T18:12:02 | 2026-04-30T18:12:02 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,893,825 | 88,765 | keith | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T20:22:50 | 2026-04-30T20:22:50 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,979,480 | 88,773 | augusto2112 | @slavapestov @jckarter @mikeash @tbkka could one of you validate that this fix is correct? The fix was generated by AI, it seems plausible to me and it does fix the test case both as a swift reflection test and lldb test, but I don't know if in general we can say that an obj-c metatype is always thick or not.
If thi... | 2026-05-01T00:04:37 | 2026-05-01T00:04:37 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,358,105,403 | 88,774 | atrick | @swift-ci test | 2026-05-01T06:12:09 | 2026-05-01T06:12:09 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,358,322,864 | 88,523 | hassila | Nice, passed now! Thanks for driving / reviewing this - will really alleviate a pain point for us. | 2026-05-01T07:26:05 | 2026-05-01T07:26:05 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,585,174 | 88,746 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-30T00:35:21 | 2026-04-30T00:35:21 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,657,435 | 88,698 | tbkka | The inlineable version of this function directly calls the old C++ entry point in the runtime, which obviously isn't available in Embedded Swift.
This should all work in Swift `main` branch. I don't recall whether #85797 which @DougGregor mentioned above made it into Swift 6.3 or not. A key goal of that PR was to re... | 2026-04-30T00:50:50 | 2026-04-30T00:50:50 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,349,885,341 | 88,549 | eeckstein | This is a problem in IRGen. Specifically in `irgen::RecordTypeInfoImpl`
cc @drexin | 2026-04-30T05:18:03 | 2026-04-30T05:18:03 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,655,649 | 88,529 | carlpeto | I think we should close this for now. It seems to me like @hjyamauchi 's fix to correct binary architecture on no asserts drivers should fix everything. | 2026-04-30T10:24:42 | 2026-04-30T10:24:42 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,864,686 | 88,733 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-30T15:36:05 | 2026-04-30T15:36:05 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,962,529 | 88,758 | Steelskin | @swift-ci please test windows platform | 2026-04-30T15:49:43 | 2026-04-30T15:49:43 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,299,607,202 | 88,568 | nadeemnali | > Thank you for the contribution! I think most of these problems have to be fixed in the solver where the fixes are generated. The diagnostics shouldn't be double-checking information passed to them, it's the job of the fix emission to produce valid fixes.
@xedin Thank you for the feedback! You were absolutely right... | 2026-04-22T20:14:07 | 2026-04-30T18:06:04 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,272,851 | 88,480 | slavapestov | @swift-ci Please smoke test | 2026-04-30T18:40:31 | 2026-04-30T18:40:31 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,061,368 | 88,768 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-30T20:49:55 | 2026-04-30T20:49:55 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,112,941 | 88,764 | tshortli | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T20:58:42 | 2026-04-30T20:58:42 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,348,254,085 | 88,744 | compnerd | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-29T23:32:50 | 2026-04-29T23:32:50 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,354,096,888 | 87,871 | j-hui | This is ready, but will open this up post-branch cut | 2026-04-30T16:07:24 | 2026-04-30T16:07:24 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,032,090 | 88,742 | compnerd | CC: @al45tair | 2026-04-30T18:14:07 | 2026-04-30T18:14:07 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,368,765 | 88,764 | tshortli | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-30T18:55:39 | 2026-04-30T18:55:39 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,806,983 | 85,866 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-30T23:16:20 | 2026-04-30T23:16:20 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,357,910,755 | 88,739 | DougGregor | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-05-01T05:02:42 | 2026-05-01T05:02:42 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,372,403 | 88,685 | al45tair | Hmmm. This is causing `Concurrency/Runtime/isolated_conformance.swift` to fail for Wasi for some reason:
```
[2026-04-27T19:36:55.632Z] # | Error: Trap: indirect call to null element (uninitialized element 8)
[2026-04-27T19:36:55.632Z] # | 0: (0x00007f5704e4c108) _swift_task_isCurrentGlobalActor
[2026-04-27T1... | 2026-04-30T09:41:36 | 2026-04-30T09:41:36 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,351,637,382 | 88,622 | Xazax-hun | Makes sense, thanks! Updated the PR. | 2026-04-30T10:21:41 | 2026-04-30T10:21:41 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,353,515,890 | 88,738 | grynspan | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-30T14:53:57 | 2026-04-30T14:53:57 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,355,429,590 | 88,766 | Azoy | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-30T19:06:08 | 2026-04-30T19:06:08 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,356,263,314 | 88,727 | j-hui | > Do we know when the memory behind the cached pointers are being reclaimed?
@Xazax-hun When `ClangImporter::{,Implementation::}loadModule` calls `clang::CompilerInstance::loadModule` ... `CompilerInstance::compileModule`, Clang compiles the module using a new compiler instance, whose `ASTContext` is used to alloca... | 2026-04-30T21:25:40 | 2026-04-30T21:25:40 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,305,739,409 | 88,624 | heckj | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-23T15:35:13 | 2026-04-23T15:35:13 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,307,413,354 | 88,633 | meg-gupta | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-23T19:47:48 | 2026-04-23T19:47:48 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,307,841,934 | 88,635 | cachemeifyoucan | This is fixing the GitHub action failure on swift-driver after the new toolchain is shipped on windows | 2026-04-23T20:36:45 | 2026-04-23T20:36:45 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,315,079 | 88,614 | hjyamauchi | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-22T22:20:11 | 2026-04-22T22:20:11 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,376,000 | 88,204 | backstopus | Could be relevant: [forum link](https://forums.swift.org/t/feedback-requested-improving-inneffective-nil-coalescing-diagnostic-feedback/86085/26)
A more thorough test [godbolt link](https://godbolt.org/z/fqxj8qErs).
Results on Swift 6.3:
```
✅ test `== 1`
✅ test `!= 1`
✅ test `== one`
✅ test `!= one`
✅ test `== .som... | 2026-04-22T22:35:48 | 2026-04-22T22:35:48 | {} | NONE |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,393,654 | 88,307 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-22T22:40:30 | 2026-04-22T22:40:30 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,670,905 | 88,587 | cachemeifyoucan | ping | 2026-04-22T23:47:12 | 2026-04-22T23:47:12 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,305,352,562 | 88,326 | edymtt | @swift-ci please build toolchain macOS | 2026-04-23T14:44:27 | 2026-04-23T14:44:27 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,306,284,989 | 88,542 | atrick | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-23T17:02:48 | 2026-04-23T17:02:48 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,299,838,941 | 86,039 | Azoy | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-22T20:46:52 | 2026-04-22T20:46:52 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,157,023 | 88,595 | atrick | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-22T21:44:28 | 2026-04-22T21:44:28 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,303,273,166 | 88,606 | aidan-hall | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-23T09:28:19 | 2026-04-23T09:28:19 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,306,197,223 | 88,387 | charles-zablit | Cherry-picking to 6.3 here:
- https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-tools-support-core/pull/558 | 2026-04-23T16:46:55 | 2026-04-23T16:46:55 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,306,429,238 | 88,615 | compnerd | @swift-ci please test Windows platform | 2026-04-23T17:26:25 | 2026-04-23T17:26:25 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,308,727,668 | 88,606 | MaxDesiatov | @swift-ci test windows | 2026-04-23T22:34:45 | 2026-04-23T22:34:45 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,313,416 | 87,797 | MaxDesiatov | https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-sdk-generator/pull/263
https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-driver/pull/2105
@swift-ci smoke test macos | 2026-04-22T22:19:46 | 2026-04-22T22:19:46 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,300,445,186 | 81,599 | a-viv-a | @rayx if its interesting; putting the isolation on the variable is actually a different thing from the fix. We allow the isolation of the closure to be erased since its stored somewhere with that isolation... but then we didn't check the isolation of the reference, we only did `checkApply`, since "normally" (not in the... | 2026-04-22T22:54:49 | 2026-04-22T22:54:49 | {
"+1": 1
} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,301,315,381 | 88,268 | tosh7 | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-23T02:21:33 | 2026-04-23T02:21:33 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,301,896,447 | 88,307 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-23T05:18:16 | 2026-04-23T05:18:16 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,302,018,356 | 87,869 | rintaro | @swift-ci Please smoke test | 2026-04-23T05:50:24 | 2026-04-23T05:50:24 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,302,061,219 | 88,620 | hnrklssn | @swift-ci please test | 2026-04-23T06:00:36 | 2026-04-23T06:00:36 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,305,898,774 | 88,307 | kavon | @swift-ci smoke test | 2026-04-23T15:57:16 | 2026-04-23T15:57:16 | {} | MEMBER |
swiftlang | swift | 4,306,530,004 | 88,542 | atrick | @swift-ci test | 2026-04-23T17:43:13 | 2026-04-23T17:43:13 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,307,752,370 | 88,635 | cachemeifyoucan | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-23T20:26:28 | 2026-04-23T20:26:28 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
swiftlang | swift | 4,308,032,637 | 85,770 | ZevEisenberg | @swift-ci please smoke test | 2026-04-23T20:58:44 | 2026-04-23T20:58:44 | {} | CONTRIBUTOR |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.