On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote:> Tom, code owner nomination. > > Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How > long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd > like to follow? >I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets updated once Chris approves. -Tom> cheers, > --renato > > On 30 April 2015 at 10:03, Cownie, James H <james.h.cownie at intel.com> wrote: > > We have noticed that although we have active development in the OpenMP > > runtime, there is no formal code-owner. > > > > > > > > I would therefore like to nominate Andrey Churbanov who is a major committer > > and has deep experience with the runtime code since before it was the LLVM > > runtime. > > > > > > > > -- Jim > > > > James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com> > > SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes) > > > > Tel: +44 117 9071438 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel Corporation (UK) Limited > > Registered No. 1134945 (England) > > Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ > > VAT No: 860 2173 47 > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >
All, Chris Bergström and Chandler Carruth made code ownership-related comments in another thread (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-April/085068.html); let me answer on them here: Chris wrote:> To stay more agnostic I'd love to see a non-Intel owner. While Hal may > not be the most active contributor - his reviews are invaluable and > less biased. I don't know if Hal has the time or interest, but I'd > nominate him for "owner". I see Tom wants to assign more owners, but > I'd like to avoid this being an "Intel runtime owned and controlled by > Intel"Chandler wrote:> - I agree with finding some non-Intel folks to add as explicit code owners. > I don't know who has been sufficiently involved, but if Hal makes sense, > awesome.While I'm always happy to see more maintainers (which means better chance to get code reviewed!) and Hal is an all-around good guy, this, IMHO, sets a bad and dangerous precedent. If code ownership for libiomp by someone employed by Intel means "Intel runtime owned and controlled by Intel", then why ownership of libc++ by Marshall Clow (from Qualcomm) is not judged on the same grounds ("Qualcomm runtime owned and controlled by Qualcomm")? Same for LLDB (owned by Greg Clayton from Apple), Sanitizers (owned by Kostya and Evgeniy Stepanov, both from Google), etc, etc? This simply goes against the basic principle of open-source development: the person who wrote most of the code / most active in development recently is the natural choice for code ownership. His/her affiliation is not relevant at all. To have this rule broken specifically for Intel is quite amusing, to say the least. Also, in the very same message, Chris wrote:> It doesn't really feel that way. I proposed a cmake patch and the only > person to review or comment was Intel. (This is coming from the person > who ported it to ARM)So, Chris submitted a patch and this patch got reviewed by someone from Intel and nobody else. By definition, this Intel person served as a good code owner. What's the problem with this and what outcome Chris expected -- his patch to be NOT reviewed?! To finish this rant, let's give Andrey Churbanov a chance and judge him as everyone else being judged here -- by his own merits. So far he did very well! -- I challenge everyone to present a single example of getting bad treatment from Andrey ("Speak now or forever hold your peace", or so they say... :-)) Yours, Andrey Bokhanko ============Software Engineer Intel Compiler Team Intel On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: >> Tom, code owner nomination. >> >> Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How >> long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd >> like to follow? >> > > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets > updated once Chris approves. > > -Tom > >> cheers, >> --renato >> >> On 30 April 2015 at 10:03, Cownie, James H <james.h.cownie at intel.com> wrote: >> > We have noticed that although we have active development in the OpenMP >> > runtime, there is no formal code-owner. >> > >> > >> > >> > I would therefore like to nominate Andrey Churbanov who is a major committer >> > and has deep experience with the runtime code since before it was the LLVM >> > runtime. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Jim >> > >> > James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com> >> > SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes) >> > >> > Tel: +44 117 9071438 >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Intel Corporation (UK) Limited >> > Registered No. 1134945 (England) >> > Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ >> > VAT No: 860 2173 47 >> > >> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On 1 May 2015 at 10:11, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote:> While I'm always happy to see more maintainers (which means better > chance to get code reviewed!) and Hal is an all-around good guy, this, > IMHO, sets a bad and dangerous precedent.Hi Andrey, I'm in no way affiliated with Intel, if anything, we're fierce competitors! :) But I totally agree with you. This has nothing to do with which company owns what, since code owners don't really own anything. For example, I am the code owner of ARM on the Linux side, Evan Cheng is owner of the ARM on the Darwin side. Go back and count how many ARM commits were reviewed and approved without our review. While you're at it, count how many times other people trumped me on ARM reviews, because they knew better, or because they were right and I was wrong, or just because more people agreed with their solution. Being a code owner doesn't mean you can do anything with it. It also doesn't mean you can commit anything to your hearts' desire. It means you're the poor bastard that will have to scrape unreviewed submissions if no one else wants to. It means you'll have to stick your head into arguments to try and calm people down, and probably get burned along the way. It's a thankless job, it doesn't fare in my "annual review", it makes enemies more than friends, and it frequently interrupts my other duties. Search the list and you'll see a lot of code owners asking for review on their patches on code they own. Why? Because it involves more than just a silly change, or an obvious fix, and it probably needs design of other parts of the compiler to change. Code owners have to be responsible for the quality all code, which most of the time means ask other people what they think, getting consensus. It's about the work you put in, not where you're from. There's no reason why Churbanov shouldn't be the code owner. Poor Andrey... :) cheers, --renato
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:44 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: >> Tom, code owner nomination. >> >> Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How >> long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd >> like to follow? >> > > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets > updated once Chris approves.Andrey makes perfect sense to me! -Chris
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:11 AM Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote:> All, > > Chris Bergström and Chandler Carruth made code ownership-related > comments in another thread > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-April/085068.html); > let me answer on them here: > > Chris wrote: > > To stay more agnostic I'd love to see a non-Intel owner. While Hal may > > not be the most active contributor - his reviews are invaluable and > > less biased. I don't know if Hal has the time or interest, but I'd > > nominate him for "owner". I see Tom wants to assign more owners, but > > I'd like to avoid this being an "Intel runtime owned and controlled by > > Intel" > > Chandler wrote: > > - I agree with finding some non-Intel folks to add as explicit code > owners. > > I don't know who has been sufficiently involved, but if Hal makes sense, > > awesome. > > While I'm always happy to see more maintainers (which means better > chance to get code reviewed!) and Hal is an all-around good guy, this, > IMHO, sets a bad and dangerous precedent. >After more thought, I agree. I wrote this off the cuff in the spirit of "if code owners being too narrow are presenting problems, lets find more code owners!", not with any real feeling that this was important or necessary. And I agree with your points about it being bad. I also skimmed through several months worth of development mail and completely agree with Andrey Churbanov being the only realistic code owner. =] However, I've not heard from him here? He should at least be part of the discussion! ;] Anyways, sorry that my minor comment caused such frustration for folks, I wish it hadn't, as I didn't mean it in a strong or imperative way, and actually agree with all of the concerns. Let's get back to the technical side of getting things ready to flip over. -Chandler -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150501/c5a09493/attachment.html>
Thank you, everyone, for the vote of confidence. I am happy to be the code owner for the OpenMP runtime code. Sorry not to have been more involved in the discussion, I was out-of-office for a holiday weekend in Russia. Thanks, Andrey> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com] > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 7:22 PM > To: Tom Stellard > Cc: Renato Golin; Churbanov, Andrey; Cownie, James H; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Code Owner for OpenMP (runtime) > > > > On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:44 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > >> Tom, code owner nomination. > >> > >> Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How > >> long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd > >> like to follow? > >> > > > > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets > > updated once Chris approves. > > Andrey makes perfect sense to me! > > -Chris-------------------------------------------------------------------- Closed Joint Stock Company Intel A/O Registered legal address: Krylatsky Hills Business Park, 17 Krylatskaya Str., Bldg 4, Moscow 121614, Russian Federation This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.