On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> > On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >> >> lib/Bitcode/* >> include/Bitcode/* >> >> This means that I'll be committed to documenting (yay) the implementation and responsible for reviewing patches and commits, as well as overall code quality and maintenance. It's a small section of the overall tree, and I realize that it is a critical portion that touches virtually the whole project. > > This sounds like a great idea to me. Unless someone objects in the next few days, consider it yours :). Please update docs/DeveloperPolicy to list yourself in the owners section. Thanks Joe,Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy to sign up as an owner for that. -- Meador Inge CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software
On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote:> On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >>> >>> lib/Bitcode/* >>> include/Bitcode/* >>> >>> This means that I'll be committed to documenting (yay) the implementation and responsible for reviewing patches and commits, as well as overall code quality and maintenance. It's a small section of the overall tree, and I realize that it is a critical portion that touches virtually the whole project. >> >> This sounds like a great idea to me. Unless someone objects in the next few days, consider it yours :). Please update docs/DeveloperPolicy to list yourself in the owners section. Thanks Joe, > > Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been reworking the library call > simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy to sign up as an owner for that.I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing up to maintain and review the whole instcombine library, that would be a great level. To see what this entails, see: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners -Chris
On 11/11/2012 11:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:>> Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been >> reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy >> to sign up as an owner for that. > > I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing > up to maintain and review the whole instcombine library, that would be a great level. To > see what this entails, see: > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-ownersI am interested and comfortable with that. I will wait a few days and then update CODE_OWNERS.TXT. -- Meador Inge CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software