llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at
32bitmicro.com>wrote:
> 
>> On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at
apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and
I am
>> not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think
that we need
>> to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the
owner. I
>> think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough.
>>>
>>> I agree.  What problem are we trying to solve here?  Are people
>> approving patches that they shouldn't?
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>
>> Rather it is the opposite, people are not approving patches they
should.
>>
> 
> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing?
Here is what happens.

I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into
3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this fixes
PR/issue/crash so it is important. But are you the code owner
and do you approve? So I have to go and start checking because
that is the process. In the past few days CODE_OWNERS.TXT
on the trunk has been changing while 3.2 has been stable,
I work on 3.2 branch so I have sent couple of e-mails
to wrong people.

Anyway, it was not my intention to cause message storm and this is
taking way too much bandwidth on the list. As always, change is
causing breakages until we all learn how to do it efficiently.
I have now a way to identify the code owners.


All I am asking is for the code owners to state clearly that
the change they ask for is approved. Couple of examples
from real e-mails:


approved APPROVED *approved*


Pawel

P.S.
I'll even take
"I am the code owner and I approve this message!"

Hi Pawel,
>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing?
>
> Here is what happens.
>
> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into
> 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this fixes
> PR/issue/crash so it is important. But are you the code owner
> and do you approve? So I have to go and start checking because
> that is the process. In the past few days CODE_OWNERS.TXT
> on the trunk has been changing while 3.2 has been stable,
> I work on 3.2 branch so I have sent couple of e-mails
> to wrong people.
>
> Anyway, it was not my intention to cause message storm and this is
> taking way too much bandwidth on the list. As always, change is
> causing breakages until we all learn how to do it efficiently.
> I have now a way to identify the code owners.
>
>
> All I am asking is for the code owners to state clearly that
> the change they ask for is approved. Couple of examples
> from real e-mails:
>
>
> approved APPROVED *approved*
what if there is no code owner?  I sent you a reassociate patch.  I may well be
the person who knows reassociate best these days, but I'm not the code owner
(there isn't one).  Should Chris be asked to confirm the patch is OK?

I likewise sent you an instruction combine patch.  I wrote the original wrong
code that the patch fixed, so I know it rather well.  As far as I know there is
no instruction combine code owner.  So again should Chris confirm?

Ciao, Duncan.

PS: The fixes in question:

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/155994.html
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156206.html
>
>
> Pawel
>
> P.S.
> I'll even take
> "I am the code owner and I approve this message!"
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>
wrote:
> Hi Pawel,
>
>
>>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing?
>>
>>
>> Here is what happens.
>>
>> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx
into
>> 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this fixes
>> PR/issue/crash so it is important. But are you the code owner
>> and do you approve? So I have to go and start checking because
>> that is the process. In the past few days CODE_OWNERS.TXT
>> on the trunk has been changing while 3.2 has been stable,
>> I work on 3.2 branch so I have sent couple of e-mails
>> to wrong people.
>>
>> Anyway, it was not my intention to cause message storm and this is
>> taking way too much bandwidth on the list. As always, change is
>> causing breakages until we all learn how to do it efficiently.
>> I have now a way to identify the code owners.
>>
>>
>> All I am asking is for the code owners to state clearly that
>> the change they ask for is approved. Couple of examples
>> from real e-mails:
>>
>>
>> approved APPROVED *approved*
>
>
> what if there is no code owner?
There's always an owner:

N: Chris Lattner
E: sabre at nondot.org
W: http://nondot.org/~sabre/
D: Everything not covered by someone else

Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged.

-Chris

On Nov 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Pawel,
> 
>>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing?
>> 
>> Here is what happens.
>> 
>> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx
into
>> 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this fixes
>> PR/issue/crash so it is important. But are you the code owner
>> and do you approve? So I have to go and start checking because
>> that is the process. In the past few days CODE_OWNERS.TXT
>> on the trunk has been changing while 3.2 has been stable,
>> I work on 3.2 branch so I have sent couple of e-mails
>> to wrong people.
>> 
>> Anyway, it was not my intention to cause message storm and this is
>> taking way too much bandwidth on the list. As always, change is
>> causing breakages until we all learn how to do it efficiently.
>> I have now a way to identify the code owners.
>> 
>> 
>> All I am asking is for the code owners to state clearly that
>> the change they ask for is approved. Couple of examples
>> from real e-mails:
>> 
>> 
>> approved APPROVED *approved*
> 
> what if there is no code owner?  I sent you a reassociate patch.  I may
well be
> the person who knows reassociate best these days, but I'm not the code
owner
> (there isn't one).  Should Chris be asked to confirm the patch is OK?
> 
> I likewise sent you an instruction combine patch.  I wrote the original
wrong
> code that the patch fixed, so I know it rather well.  As far as I know
there is
> no instruction combine code owner.  So again should Chris confirm?
> 
> Ciao, Duncan.
> 
> PS: The fixes in question:
> 
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/155994.html
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156206.html
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Pawel
>> 
>> P.S.
>> I'll even take
>> "I am the code owner and I approve this message!"
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> 
>