llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] RFC: Code Ownership

On 11/12/2012 09:35 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/11/12 15:11, Meador Inge wrote:
>> 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-owners
>>
>> I am interested and comfortable with that.  I will wait a few days and
then
>> update CODE_OWNERS.TXT.
> 
> while I think it's great that Meador is stepping forward to help out
here, it
> does bring up the question of how expert you have to be to become a code
owner.
> As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) Meador isn't the
number 1 LLVM
> instcombine expert, but instead is someone who knows instcombine fairly
well
> and is willing to spend time making sure instcombine is in good shape and
stays
> that way.  My take is that you should be able to be a code owner without
being
> the ultimate über hacker for that subsystem, since (1) the über hackers
will
> have their eye on you and will let you know if you get it wrong; and (2)
being
> willing counts for a lot.  More power to volunteers!  Hopefully if people
talk
> with each other, help each other out, and maintain a friendly and
cooperative
> atmosphere then all problems with code ownership will just come out in the
wash.
That is definitely a fair assessment.  I am not the #1 instcombine
super-hacker, but I am willing to keep it in good shape.  Even if that means
bugging other people :-)

Another point to address is whether there can be more than one owner in a
particular area.

-- 
Meador Inge
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

On 12 November 2012 15:55, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com>
wrote:
> Another point to address is whether there can be more than one owner in a
> particular area.
There might be more than one code expert per area, which can be
referenced by the code owner, but I wouldn't have more than one owner.

Owning part of the code means you'll have to keep a sharper eye on
particular changes than others and should raise concerns when they're
due, and not to take the blame for breaking or charged for fixing
broken code.

--
cheers,
--renato

http://systemcall.org/

On the topic of code owners:

Would it make sense to add target-specific code owners for the codegen
targets?  Some of the targets are more esoteric (e.g. NVPTX, CellSPU,
AMDGPU) and may benefit from more fine-grained code ownership.


On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at
systemcall.org>wrote:
> On 12 November 2012 15:55, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com>
wrote:
> > Another point to address is whether there can be more than one owner
in a
> > particular area.
>
> There might be more than one code expert per area, which can be
> referenced by the code owner, but I wouldn't have more than one owner.
>
> Owning part of the code means you'll have to keep a sharper eye on
> particular changes than others and should raise concerns when they're
> due, and not to take the blame for breaking or charged for fixing
> broken code.
>
> --
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> http://systemcall.org/
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121112/093d3290/attachment.html>