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

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
>> 
>

On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged.
...
>>
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
Thanks Chris.  Can you please also give your go ahead for this nasty reassociate
infinite loop (PR14060):

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html

Best wishes, Duncan.

Duncan,

I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as
one reassociate changeset:

Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291?
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html

Pawel



> On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged.
> ...
>>>
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
>>>
> 
> Thanks Chris.  Can you please also give your go ahead for this nasty
> reassociate
> infinite loop (PR14060):
> 
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html
> 
> 
> Best wishes, Duncan.
> 
>