search for: reviewing

...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: basic user stuff belonging to a functional STI relationship) ========== def User < Client has_many :reviewings, :as => :reviewable, :dependent => true has_many :reviews, :through => :reviewings end ========== Review (table Reviews: id, rating, review) ========== def Review < AR:B has_many :reviewings end ========== Reviewing (table Reviewings: id, review_id, reviewable_id, review...

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people who are new to our community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to new developers.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

...I'll ask for the author to wait to commit until one or more of the other reviewers are happy too, but other times I forget to explicitly say this. Perhaps a couple of sentences could be added to the end of this paragraph to capture this approach: "If multiple reviewers have been actively reviewing the patch, it is generally courteous to allow all of them a chance to give their LGTM before committing, after one LGTM has been received. The reviewer who gives the original LGTM may suggest an appropriate amount of time to wait before committing in this case." What I want to avoid is me (UK...

+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

...as 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"? Some of these people I have never even ever met or never > heard of them before reviewing a patch (sometimes I don't even realize > since there is a Phabricator pseudo and not everyone is using their > business email here). > > -- > Mehdi > > > > > >> If that's not >>> possible, care should be taken to ensure overall direction has bee...

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

...ask for the author to wait to commit until one or more of the other reviewers are happy too, but other times I forget to explicitly say this. Perhaps a couple of sentences could be added to the end of this paragraph to capture this approach: > > "If multiple reviewers have been actively reviewing the patch, it is generally courteous to allow all of them a chance to give their LGTM before committing, after one LGTM has been received. The reviewer who gives the original LGTM may suggest an appropriate amount of time to wait before committing in this case." > > What I want to avoid...

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

...ly). The >> notion of "organization" is blurry: frequently this involved people from >> different teams inside the same company, are they part of "the same >> organization"? Some of these people I have never even ever met or never >> heard of them before reviewing a patch (sometimes I don't even realize >> since there is a Phabricator pseudo and not everyone is using their >> business email here). >> >> -- >> Mehdi >> >> >> >> >> >>> If that's not >>>> possible, care sho...

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.'' #

...sues encountered with Github's review interface. >> >> Some of the things it claims to support which seem like important >> additions: >> - Tracking the resolved status of each discussion point >> - Rebasing a PR without losing review history. >> - Optionally reviewing each commit in a branch separately, and tracking >> across rebase/force-pushes of the PR branch, via matching the >> commit descriptions of the new push against the old push. >> >> However, I haven't tried it. It'd be great if some of the folks using >> GitHub...

...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 amorphous diff is something that I wouldn't wish on anybody. Conversely, having the linkage between different commits provides context to reviewers. It is also helpful to me: I can keep track of reviews to the series while simultaneously working on other changes that ha...

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

...;> notion of "organization" is blurry: frequently this involved people from >>> different teams inside the same company, are they part of "the same >>> organization"? Some of these people I have never even ever met or never >>> heard of them before reviewing a patch (sometimes I don't even realize >>> since there is a Phabricator pseudo and not everyone is using their >>> business email here). >>> >>> -- >>> Mehdi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> If that...

...oing 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 of each discussion point - Rebasing a PR without losing review history. - Optionally reviewing each commit in a branch separately, and tracking across rebase/force-pushes of the PR branch, via matching the commit descriptions of the new push against the old push. However, I haven't tried it. It'd be great if some of the folks using GitHub PRs could try switching to reviewable.io, to...

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