On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:> David A. Green wrote: >> I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. >> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason >> for that beyond lack of time. > > So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to > review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? > > Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to monitor the > Pull Requests of a spork than to write a clever filter for > llvm-commits. And we'll also say that it may or may not be easier for > reviewers to comment on a patch on Github than trying to reference > code blocks in llvm-commits email. At this point we really don't know > if one solution is better than the other, but we have good reason to > believe Pull Requests might be a big win. So rather than all the > talk, can we baby-step forward in a noncommittal way? > > How about allowing the code owner to add a line to CODE_OWNERS.TXT of > the location to submit patches? If no location is given, assume > llvm-commits. If the URI is a Github spork, the contributor should > make a Pull Request.This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. -Eli
> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits.No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the community than llvm-commits. 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Github pull requests can't be sent to llvm-commits. #1 may or may not be the case, which is the point of this experiment. #2 is intentionally absurd. -Greg On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> David A. Green wrote: >>> I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. >>> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason >>> for that beyond lack of time. >> >> So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to >> review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? >> >> Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to monitor the >> Pull Requests of a spork than to write a clever filter for >> llvm-commits. And we'll also say that it may or may not be easier for >> reviewers to comment on a patch on Github than trying to reference >> code blocks in llvm-commits email. At this point we really don't know >> if one solution is better than the other, but we have good reason to >> believe Pull Requests might be a big win. So rather than all the >> talk, can we baby-step forward in a noncommittal way? >> >> How about allowing the code owner to add a line to CODE_OWNERS.TXT of >> the location to submit patches? If no location is given, assume >> llvm-commits. If the URI is a Github spork, the contributor should >> make a Pull Request. > > This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. > > -Eli
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:>> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits. > > No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions: > > 1) Cost-benefit fails. Github pull requests adds less value to the > community than llvm-commits. > 2) No technical solution exists. Notifications of Github pull > requests can't be sent to llvm-commits. > > #1 may or may not be the case, which is the point of this experiment. > #2 is intentionally absurd.Some technical solution might exist, but it would need to be in place before any experiment along these lines. Given that we already have http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com , it seems like it would be a better idea to put effort in that direction. -Eli