llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if
it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change
every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a
simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough.

On Nov 17, 2012, at 2:51, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Pawel, I guess the code owner could be noted in each source file.
> Eg: in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp, there could be a line in the comment
> block at the start:
> 
> // Code owner: Owen Anderson (resistor at mac.com)
> 
> Then anyone working on a bug or with questions about code instantly knows
> who to turn to.
> 
> Ciao, Duncan.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not
sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to
change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think
that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough.
^^ this

Joe

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com>
> To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com>
> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the
Code Owners
> 
> 
> On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>
wrote:
> 
> > I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I
> > am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't
think
> > that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool
> > to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section
> > in the docs is enough.
> 
> ^^ this
Pawel, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your underlying
problem is that people are sending you merge requests directly, and you're
not sure from whom you need to make sure to get approvals. This being the case,
you should stop accepting such requests. Requests should be sent directly to the
code owners (on list). Only those code owners should communicate directly with
you (either to instruct you to merge in certain patches, or better yet, to merge
in approved changes directly). I think this matches the original intent of the
system: it partitions the workload among domain experts instead of forcing you
to deal explicitly with many of the requests.

 -Hal
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Postdoctoral Appointee
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not
sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to
change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think
that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough.
I agree.  What problem are we trying to solve here?  Are people approving
patches that they shouldn't?

-Chris

On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
> On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am
not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we
need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I
think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough.
> 
> I agree.  What problem are we trying to solve here?  Are people approving
patches that they shouldn't?
> 
> -Chris
>
Rather it is the opposite, people are not approving patches they should.

Pawel