llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] code-owner sporks

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> "David Peixotto" <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> writes:
>
> > I think the main benefit of a scheme like this would be that a pull
> > request tells a code owner which patches require their attention. As a
> > contributor it would be nice to see your patch in a queue somewhere
> > rather than just be buried down the mailing list. When patches are
> > sent to llvm-commits it can be hard to tell if a code owner has
> > noticed the patch because it is a very high-volume list.
>
> This is right.  The highest barrier to entry for patches is that they
> are not seen.
>
>

This is opinion. I see everyone's patches, but my review time is precious
and the patch may not hit the criteria of what I'm willing to spend my time
on.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121116/df1c9aae/attachment.html>

Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes:
>     This is right.  The highest barrier to entry for patches is that
>     they
>     are not seen.
>     
>                
>
>
> This is opinion. I see everyone's patches, but my review time is
> precious and the patch may not hit the criteria of what I'm willing to
> spend my time on.
That's valid, but code owners should at least acknowledge the patch and
say, "I don't have time to review this" with some estimate of how
long
it might take before they get around to it.  I say "code owners"
because
we shouldn't require everyone on the list to acknowledge a patch they
won't review.  :)

As a contributor, my time is precious too.  I would like to have some
way of knowing that *someone* is looking at the patch, that it hasn't
just dropped on the floor.  A patch queue would at least allow me to
track progress and not have to save a bunch of e-mails of patches I
submitted and need to ping four days from now.

Really, patches get dropped *all the time* to the point where pings are
a regular part of the development process.  That's a huge waste of time
for everyone.

                            -David

> Really, patches get dropped *all the time* to the point where pings are
> a regular part of the development process.  That's a huge waste of time
> for everyone.
It's only a waste of time if your workflow is entirely synchronous
with patch review. Most of us have a number of things that we can work
on, so letting a patch chill for a while on the list isn't a big deal
because we just go on and do something else.

Also, this situation has piqued my interest and so I am researching
the issues involved. Could you give me some links (or thread titles)
for dropped patches, so that I can take a look at them and try to
puzzle out how the development process ended up in them being dropped?
Nothing big, maybe 5 or so is probably enough. Thanks.

-- Sean Silva

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM,  <dag at cray.com>
wrote:
> Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes:
>
>>     This is right.  The highest barrier to entry for patches is that
>>     they
>>     are not seen.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is opinion. I see everyone's patches, but my review time is
>> precious and the patch may not hit the criteria of what I'm willing
to
>> spend my time on.
>
> That's valid, but code owners should at least acknowledge the patch and
> say, "I don't have time to review this" with some estimate of
how long
> it might take before they get around to it.  I say "code owners"
because
> we shouldn't require everyone on the list to acknowledge a patch they
> won't review.  :)
>
> As a contributor, my time is precious too.  I would like to have some
> way of knowing that *someone* is looking at the patch, that it hasn't
> just dropped on the floor.  A patch queue would at least allow me to
> track progress and not have to save a bunch of e-mails of patches I
> submitted and need to ping four days from now.
>
> Really, patches get dropped *all the time* to the point where pings are
> a regular part of the development process.  That's a huge waste of time
> for everyone.
>
>                             -David
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev