Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "106696".
Did you mean:
106496
2017 Aug 26
10
[RFC] 'Review corner' section in LLVM Weekly
...tors.
There may be alternative or complementary approaches to tackling this
perceived problem we should discuss - I'm coming from a position of trying to
apply the tools I have at my disposal. Also see my previous thoughts on this
issue <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106696.html>.
I don't think it's controversial to suggest that while the code review process
works fantastically well a lot of the time, some patches fall through the
cracks and long delays in review feedback can put people off contributing to
LLVM. As was pointed out in response to the last R...
2016 Oct 31
2
BoF: Raising Next Generation of LLVM Developers
Dear community,
We are trying to setup a BoF ( Raising Next Generation of LLVM
Developers, http://sched.co/8Yzs).
In our academic-oriented environments the main work force is
students: undergrads, grads or PhD (rarely postdocs). Often we have
limited time to bring somebody up to speed and we have to it in a
productive and motivating for both parties way. I believe most of you
had
2017 Aug 28
2
[RFC] 'Review corner' section in LLVM Weekly
...ive or complementary approaches to tackling this
>> perceived problem we should discuss - I'm coming from a position of trying to
>> apply the tools I have at my disposal. Also see my previous thoughts on this
>> issue <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106696.html>.
>
> Hans Wennborg suggested on Twitter that bugs could also be included. I
> can't write a coherent response in 140 characters, so am responding
> here.
The reason I brought it up is because I think the situation is
somewhat similar to stalled reviews; in fact forgotten b...
2017 Sep 18
0
[RFC] 'Review corner' section in LLVM Weekly
...be alternative or complementary approaches to tackling this
> perceived problem we should discuss - I'm coming from a position of trying to
> apply the tools I have at my disposal. Also see my previous thoughts on this
> issue <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106696.html>.
>
> I don't think it's controversial to suggest that while the code review process
> works fantastically well a lot of the time, some patches fall through the
> cracks and long delays in review feedback can put people off contributing to
> LLVM. As was pointed out i...