llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] RFC: I'm interested in filling the code-owner role for the following...

Config
ADT
Support[1]
CMake
"library layering"[2]

Inlining (including cost and other related passes)
SROA / mem2reg (and other related passes)

[1]: Regarding Support: I talked to Michael Spencer about this. I'm
offering to own most of Support, but would like Michael's to be
reviewing all OS-specific code for Windows compatibility (includes the
Windows directory and a few other bits). Similarly, I'd like Eric
Christopher to review all OS-specific code for Darwin compatibility.
I've talked to both of them and they seem fine with this. It means 3
people reviewing, but I think this is important for OS-specific stuff
given the different concerns...

[2]: Regarding "library layering": this isn't any one directory,
but
it's a cross-cutting concern that I (personally) think is really
important, and an area I've been working on quite a bit already.

a) Sounds good to me.
b) You're crazy. ;)

-Jim

On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> Config
> ADT
> Support[1]
> CMake
> "library layering"[2]
> 
> Inlining (including cost and other related passes)
> SROA / mem2reg (and other related passes)
> 
> [1]: Regarding Support: I talked to Michael Spencer about this. I'm
> offering to own most of Support, but would like Michael's to be
> reviewing all OS-specific code for Windows compatibility (includes the
> Windows directory and a few other bits). Similarly, I'd like Eric
> Christopher to review all OS-specific code for Darwin compatibility.
> I've talked to both of them and they seem fine with this. It means 3
> people reviewing, but I think this is important for OS-specific stuff
> given the different concerns...
> 
> [2]: Regarding "library layering": this isn't any one
directory, but
> it's a cross-cutting concern that I (personally) think is really
> important, and an area I've been working on quite a bit already.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> Config
> ADT
> Support[1]
> CMake
> "library layering"[2]
> 
> Inlining (including cost and other related passes)
> SROA / mem2reg (and other related passes)
Makes sense to me!
> [1]: Regarding Support: I talked to Michael Spencer about this. I'm
> offering to own most of Support, but would like Michael's to be
> reviewing all OS-specific code for Windows compatibility (includes the
> Windows directory and a few other bits). Similarly, I'd like Eric
> Christopher to review all OS-specific code for Darwin compatibility.
> I've talked to both of them and they seem fine with this. It means 3
> people reviewing, but I think this is important for OS-specific stuff
> given the different concerns…
Sounds fine.  I still want someone on the hook for being the overall owner.  So
long as your willing to be the one to cross check with them, I'm ok with any
contributor who is competent in an area to do the actual review.

-Chris

2012/11/16 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com> wrote:
>> Config
>> ADT
>> Support[1]
>> CMake
>> "library layering"[2]
>>
>> Inlining (including cost and other related passes)
>> SROA / mem2reg (and other related passes)
>
> Makes sense to me!
>
>> [1]: Regarding Support: I talked to Michael Spencer about this. I'm
>> offering to own most of Support, but would like Michael's to be
>> reviewing all OS-specific code for Windows compatibility (includes the
>> Windows directory and a few other bits). Similarly, I'd like Eric
>> Christopher to review all OS-specific code for Darwin compatibility.
>> I've talked to both of them and they seem fine with this. It means
3
>> people reviewing, but I think this is important for OS-specific stuff
>> given the different concerns…
>
> Sounds fine.  I still want someone on the hook for being the overall owner.
So long as your willing to be the one to cross check with them, I'm ok with
any contributor who is competent in an area to do the actual review.
I rather suggest "the small committee" model for it by a few persons.
For example; (assume "you" as a member in the committee, and
"others"
as other members in the committee)

  - You may approve (and commit) any trivial (rather, non-critical) proposals.
  - You may be responsible to watch others' commits (with
after-commit) each other.
  - It could be better for you to ask, delegate, and propose optional
or non-trivial issues to others.
  - Mr. Chris Lattner is the chairman! (Though, we shouldn't rely on him)
  - Be polite! Be honest! Happy hacking!

...Takumi