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

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

On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:32 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 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!
The problem with having >1 person as a code owner for a component, is that it
is quite possible that each will assume that someone else is looking at a patch.
No one knows what patches are being watched, etc.

-Chris

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:
> The problem with having >1 person as a code owner for a component, is
> that it is quite possible that each will assume that someone else is
> looking at a patch.  No one knows what patches are being watched, etc.
Isn't this an indication that some kind of formalized process (i.e. a
patch queue) is desirable?

                          -David