search for: reviewed

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

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 Phabricator reviews to people who

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people who are new to our community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to new developers.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 a

With the help of several heroes here yesterday I beat my way into a working solution to adding comments to one or more models in my application using acts_as_comentable. Great plugin, but my implementation is lame. 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

I just saw this, and I have 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,

> > 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 to say, I'm not particularly comfortable with

+1 in general, and Philip has good suggestions as well! -- Mehdi On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 8:37 AM Philip Reames 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

...the author/reviewer of > a patch from an organizational point of view, I haven't perceived this > culture of looking into affiliation so far. I never got the impression that > reviewer were more difficult with me than they would be with others. > There have been many patches that I reviewed that originated from other > people from the same company as mine (back when I was at Apple mostly). The > notion of "organization" is blurry: frequently this involved people from > different teams inside the same company, are they part of "the same > organization"?...

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:25:10PM +0100, Serge Guelton via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:47:03PM -0500, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > > That said, I do think it could make sense to prepare llvm for the world in > > which "python" is python3 on some systems. So, I'd propose the following: > > 1. Change all #! lines to say

...my comments might not reach that level etc. > > > I agree with this. I was planning on proposing wording along the lines of the following, adding to the original suggestion: > > When providing an unqualified LGTM (approval to commit), it is the responsibility of the reviewer to have reviewed all of the discussion and feedback from all reviewers ensuring that all feedback has been addressed and that all other reviewers will almost surely be satisfied with the patch being approved. If unsure, the reviewer should provide a qualified approval, (e.g., "LGTM, but please wait for @someon...

Hello all. This is a proposal to introduce 5 new integer intrinsics: * absolute value * signed min * signed max * unsigned min * unsigned max This is motivated 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

I have ported ASan in LLVM to Myriad RTEMS, and I would like to upstream the port. Below is the design doc. Feedback 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

...ewer of >> a patch from an organizational point of view, I haven't perceived this >> culture of looking into affiliation so far. I never got the impression that >> reviewer were more difficult with me than they would be with others. >> There have been many patches that I reviewed that originated from other >> people from the same company as mine (back when I was at Apple mostly). The >> notion of "organization" is blurry: frequently this involved people from >> different teams inside the same company, are they part of "the same >> org...

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 created.'' #

...ub keeps seems to keep a reference to commits where a review >>> occurred, but does not necessarily preserve other commits in the chain. >>> Also note that you can go back and look at either the final disposition of >>> the code on the main page, or view the diff "as reviewed" to understand >>> comments in their original context. >>> > >>> > Method 2: start a review as a sequence of commits. Respond to review >>> comments by updating your sequence of commits rebasing locally and git push >>> -f to update your branc...

...no functional change) refactoring/rename change in an area that is then later touched by a functional change. - a change to common infrastructure (TableGen) that is motivated by and used by a subsequent functional change in the AMDGPU backend, but which can stand on its own and which may want to be reviewed by different people - a cleanup change to remove deprecated functionality from the backend once the refactored functionality is available, separated out in order to smoothen the upgrade path for frontends that are maintained outside of the llvm-project repository Reviewing all of this in a single...

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 as is, then a follow-up patch submitted, or should the

...; of a patch from an organizational point of view, I haven't perceived this >>> culture of looking into affiliation so far. I never got the impression that >>> reviewer were more difficult with me than they would be with others. >>> There have been many patches that I reviewed that originated from other >>> people from the same company as mine (back when I was at Apple mostly). The >>> notion of "organization" is blurry: frequently this involved people from >>> different teams inside the same company, are they part of "the same...

.../62 Note > that Github keeps seems to keep a reference to commits where a review > occurred, but does not necessarily preserve other commits in the chain. > Also note that you can go back and look at either the final disposition of > the code on the main page, or view the diff "as reviewed" to understand > comments in their original context. > > > > Method 2: start a review as a sequence of commits. Respond to review > comments by updating your sequence of commits rebasing locally and git push > -f to update your branch with a new set of commits. The sequenc...

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