Hi Rui,> so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), ...Sounds good to me. Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since I'll be continuing to work on that? Cheers, Lang. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and > over-engineering. I > > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be an > > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm > responsible to > > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if > > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. > > Thanks Rui! That'd be great! > > cheers, > --renato >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150715/9c27ab2a/attachment.html>
FWIW, that seems reasonable at some point, although it might be useful to wait until you've had more patches and stuff land? I would assume that Nick is still a reasonable owner for all those parts, but mayba that's not the case? On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:04 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Rui, > > > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), > ... > > Sounds good to me. > > Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since > I'll be continuing to work on that? > > Cheers, > Lang. > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and >> over-engineering. I >> > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be >> an >> > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm >> responsible to >> > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if >> > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. >> >> Thanks Rui! That'd be great! >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150716/60799d7a/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Rui, > > > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), > ... > > Sounds good to me. > > Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since > I'll be continuing to work on that? >I'm not very familiar with convention in LLVM, but my understanding is that one needs to became an effective owner by driving development of a project before becoming an official owner, so in that sense you may want to act like an owner and then wait for people to start thinking that you effectively own that portion of the source code?> Cheers, > Lang. > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and >> over-engineering. I >> > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be >> an >> > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm >> responsible to >> > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if >> > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. >> >> Thanks Rui! That'd be great! >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150715/9282aa3b/attachment.html>
FYI, Lang’s office is next to mine. Going forward, he will have much more time than me to work on lld. I am very comfortable having Lang as the owner of the mach-o parts of lld. -Nick> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > FWIW, that seems reasonable at some point, although it might be useful to wait until you've had more patches and stuff land? I would assume that Nick is still a reasonable owner for all those parts, but mayba that's not the case? > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:04 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com <mailto:lhames at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Rui, > > > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), ... > > Sounds good to me. > > Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since I'll be continuing to work on that? > > Cheers, > Lang. > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: > On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote: > > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and over-engineering. I > > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be an > > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm responsible to > > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if > > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. > > Thanks Rui! That'd be great! > > cheers, > --renato > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <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-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150716/bd647f50/attachment.html>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Rui, >> >> > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), >> ... >> >> Sounds good to me. >> >> Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since >> I'll be continuing to work on that? >> > > I'm not very familiar with convention in LLVM, but my understanding is > that one needs to became an effective owner by driving development of a > project before becoming an official owner, so in that sense you may want to > act like an owner and then wait for people to start thinking that you > effectively own that portion of the source code? >Yep, pretty much. It's no big deal for Lang to be contributing substantially in post-commit review (& having ready access to Nick will no doubt be helpful there*) for a bit before switching ownership. * It'd be nice to have more lld discussions in public, too, though - the project seems to sort of had singular interested parties for a lot of its history, so it's lacked community dialog/discussion. (this is just a naive view, I haven't followed the project in detail) - Dave> > >> Cheers, >> Lang. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >>> > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and >>> over-engineering. I >>> > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be >>> an >>> > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm >>> responsible to >>> > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if >>> > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. >>> >>> Thanks Rui! That'd be great! >>> >>> cheers, >>> --renato >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/04872eaa/attachment.html>
Chandler makes a good point that Nick is the obvious current code owner of the MachO aspects of LLD. To codify current reality in CODE_OWNERS.txt, that’s straightforward and a good thing to do. There’s a bit more to it than just that, however. The goal of CODE_OWNERS.txt is to give high level guidance for who to ask questions of, seek out for code review, find for partnering up for collaborating on crazy ideas, etc.. The right person for a great deal of that on LLD+Darwin is Lang, and it would be a shame to have the official listing not reflect that. It seems to me we should just keep it simple and list both Nick and Lang in CODE_OWNERS.txt. Assuming Nick and Lang are both OK with that, of course. -Jim> > > FYI, Lang’s office is next to mine. Going forward, he will have much more time than me to work on lld. I am very comfortable having Lang as the owner of the mach-o parts of lld. > > -Nick > > >> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: >> >> FWIW, that seems reasonable at some point, although it might be useful to wait until you've had more patches and stuff land? I would assume that Nick is still a reasonable owner for all those parts, but mayba that's not the case? >> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:04 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com <mailto:lhames at gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi Rui, >> >> > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), ... >> >> Sounds good to me. >> >> Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since I'll be continuing to work on that? >> >> Cheers, >> Lang. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote: >> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote: >> > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and over-engineering. I >> > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be an >> > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm responsible to >> > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if >> > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. >> >> Thanks Rui! That'd be great! >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu <http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/533ac501/attachment.html>
Sounds good to me. - Lang.> On Jul 17, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > Chandler makes a good point that Nick is the obvious current code owner of the MachO aspects of LLD. To codify current reality in CODE_OWNERS.txt, that’s straightforward and a good thing to do. There’s a bit more to it than just that, however. The goal of CODE_OWNERS.txt is to give high level guidance for who to ask questions of, seek out for code review, find for partnering up for collaborating on crazy ideas, etc.. The right person for a great deal of that on LLD+Darwin is Lang, and it would be a shame to have the official listing not reflect that. It seems to me we should just keep it simple and list both Nick and Lang in CODE_OWNERS.txt. Assuming Nick and Lang are both OK with that, of course. > > -Jim > >> >> >> FYI, Lang’s office is next to mine. Going forward, he will have much more time than me to work on lld. I am very comfortable having Lang as the owner of the mach-o parts of lld. >> >> -Nick >> >> >>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, that seems reasonable at some point, although it might be useful to wait until you've had more patches and stuff land? I would assume that Nick is still a reasonable owner for all those parts, but mayba that's not the case? >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:04 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Rui, >>>> >>>> > so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), ... >>>> >>>> Sounds good to me. >>>> >>>> Do you mind if I add myself as a code owner for LLD Core / MachO, since I'll be continuing to work on that? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Lang. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On 15 July 2015 at 00:08, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >>>>> > Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and over-engineering. I >>>>> > don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be an >>>>> > owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that I'm responsible to >>>>> > ensure all patches are reviewed (whether pre-commit or post-commit) if >>>>> > submitted to one of ELF or COFF directories. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Rui! That'd be great! >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> --renato >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/d349d9bd/attachment.html>
On 18 July 2015 at 00:51, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:> The goal of CODE_OWNERS.txt is to give high level > guidance for who to ask questions of, seek out for code review, find for > partnering up for collaborating on crazy ideas, etc.. The right person for a > great deal of that on LLD+Darwin is Lang, and it would be a shame to have > the official listing not reflect that.I agree with this point of view. Lang knows the code well, is willing to own it and has direct access to Nick.> It seems to me we should just keep it > simple and list both Nick and Lang in CODE_OWNERS.txt. Assuming Nick and > Lang are both OK with that, of course.Which file is this? I can't find Nick on any CODE_OWNERS.txt files. And LLD has none. If Nick is the owner of LLD and Rui owns LLD+COFF+ELF, I can't see why we shouldn't put Lang as LLD+Darwin and let the hierarchical chain mean the rest. Given that we don't have any strict rules about ownership, and that it doesn't mean the same as "maintainers" in the kernel or GCC, I think we can be a bit relaxed on how we deal with it. cheers, --renato