search for: review

If anybody on edge familiar with this could help, that would be "great" :) I have different types of things I want to be "reviewable". So, instead of having a slew of HABTM... this new Polymorphic Associations schtick seemed like the best solution. I have everything setup as I thought it should be (so I think)... but it doesn''t appear to be working correctly. Here is my setup: User (table Clients:...

Hi, At the last EuroLLVM, I gave a lightning talk about code review statistics on Phabricator reviews and what we could derive from that to try and reduce waiting-for-review bottlenecks. (see https://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-04/talks.html#Lightning_2). One of the items I pointed to is a script we've been using internally for a little while to try and match open Ph...

Hi, everyone, I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to new developers.   http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews I would like to compose...

...I need enlightenment. I have users who log in. For several views I want to let them add comments. Enter act_as_commentable which does just this -- it''s polymorphic, so you just tell your model to act_as_commentable and it obeys. However... Say I have a model, view and controller of my reviews of movies, which I''ll call Reviews. I write a reviews and I want to let my loyal users add comments. What does my view (rhtml) look like? The view shows my review, of course, and perhaps a list of other users'' comments on that review. But now, Joe wants to comment on my revie...

...ve to say -- thanks, Kristof! Do you know if this is something that could be automated in Phabricator, instead of something that people run on their own? Or is the intent of this to be something that ran regularly (say, weekly or daily) that would email people (or the list) that could be doing the reviews for some of the open patches? On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > At the last EuroLLVM, I gave a lightning talk about code review > statistics on Phabricator reviews and what we could derive from that > to...

> > Only a single LGTM is required. Reviewers are expected to only LGTM > patches they're confident in their knowledge of. Reviewers may review > and provide suggestions, but explicitly defer LGTM to someone else. > This is encouraged and a good way for new contributors to learn the code. Whilst I get what you're trying t...

...s via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > + 1 in general, a couple of suggestions > > On 11/14/19 7:46 PM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, everyone, > > > > I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our > > code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our > > community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on > > code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to > > new developers. > > > > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPoli...

...t; >>> + 1 in general, a couple of suggestions >>> >>> On 11/14/19 7:46 PM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev wrote: >>> > Hi, everyone, >>> > >>> > I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our >>> > code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our >>> > community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on >>> > code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to >>> > new developers. >>> > >>> &g...

...> > 2. If someone feels motivated, and if it doesn't make the code obtuse, port > > scripts to work with either version -- and for such scripts, change the #! line > > to say "#!/usr/bin/env python". > > > I've started the work: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55121 > > More patch may come if there's an interest in that. Most if not all Python scripts in the clang/ repo have been ported and are waiting for reviews. I've split them in independant patches to ease the review works: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55259 https://reviews....

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:53 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 11/18/19 4:29 AM, James Henderson wrote: >> >> Only a single LGTM is required. Reviewers are expected to only LGTM >> patches they're confident in their knowledge of. Reviewers may review >> and provide suggestions, but explicitly defer LGTM to someone else. >> This is encouraged and a good way for new contributors to learn the code. > > Whilst I get wha...

...ted by the fact that we keep working around not having these intrinsics, and that constantly leads us into having more workarounds, and causes infinite combine loops. Here's a (likely incomplete!) list of motivational bugs: infinite loops: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46271 / https://reviews.llvm.org/D81698 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45539 / https://reviews.llvm.org/rG01bcc3e93714 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44835 / https://reviews.llvm.org/D74278 https://reviews.llvm.org/D68408#1976760 https://reviews.llvm.org/D59378 https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38915 /...

...k welcome. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oxmk0xUojybDaQDAuTEVpHVMi5xQX74cJPyMJbaSaRM The port is expected to work with modified versions of RTEMS and newlib. I have a git repo with changes to those projects, that I can make available if there is interest. Here is the patch series: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46451 [asan] Add instrumentation support for Myriad https://reviews.llvm.org/D46452 [sanitizer] Don't add --export-dynamic for Myriad https://reviews.llvm.org/D46453 [sanitizer] Add definitions for Myriad RTEMS platform https://reviews.llvm.org/D46454 [sanitizer] Trivial portion of t...

...exceptions (see the second > sentence past Mehdi's quote), but in general, particularly for new > contributors, I think it is important we indicate something to this > effect. I've seen multiple new groups have issues around this. In some > cases, patches were reverted in post review. In others, a bunch of time > was sunk in a direction which turned turned out not to have wide > agreement. Cautioning folks to avoid that is important. > > Do you have any suggestions on wording which keep the broad message, but > make it more clear that it isn't a hard and fa...

def create # next statement is original and is removed # @review = Review.new(params[:review]) @school = School.find(params[:school_id]) # @review = @school.reviews.create!(params[:review]) @review = @school.reviews.build(params[:review]) respond_to do |format| if @review.save flash[:notice] = ''Review was successfully c...

Uh-oh: Failed to publish: GitHub error 404 on POST https://api.github.com/repos/llvm/mlir-npcomp/pulls/42/reviews: Not Found (The llvm organization may need to authorize Reviewable as an accepted third party application.) Can an admin take the suggested action on the mlir-npcomp project in the LLVM org? I've followed the instructions in this help doc <https://docs.github.com/en/github/setting-up-and-m...

...hab's advanced > features and why. For example, what drives the need for patch series > and dependence relationships? Some walk-through examples would be very > helpful. Here's a somewhat more complex example of changes made by myself a year and a half ago, starting with https://reviews.llvm.org/D48013 It's a series of changes across TableGen and the AMDGPU backend to refactor how we represent a class of instructions. Some patterns that occur: - an NFC (no functional change) refactoring/rename change in an area that is then later touched by a functional change. - a change to...

I've read "LLVM Code-Review Policies and Practices," but I remain unsure of a couple of things. Do I always wait for an actual "LGTM", or can people approve the patch for submission in other ways? What happens when a patch is approved but then there are additional review comments? Should the patch be submitted...

...the >> second sentence past Mehdi's quote), but in general, particularly for new >> contributors, I think it is important we indicate something to this >> effect. I've seen multiple new groups have issues around this. In some >> cases, patches were reverted in post review. In others, a bunch of time >> was sunk in a direction which turned turned out not to have wide >> agreement. Cautioning folks to avoid that is important. >> >> Do you have any suggestions on wording which keep the broad message, but >> make it more clear that it isn...

Has anyone tried out reviewable.io yet? It integrates with GitHub pull requests, but provides a separate UI for doing the review which promises to fix a lot of the issues encountered with Github's review interface. Some of the things it claims to support which seem like important additions: - Tracking the resolved status...

Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with LLVM's code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews> as well as LLVM Weekly, the development newsletter I've written and sent out every Monday since Jan 2014. Since that time, it's provided something of a "signal boost" for important mailing list discussions and...