similar to: [LLVMdev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

>> This approach is fine for casual reader but >> does not work for scripting or any automated >> way of dealing with the build. > Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the > patch approval process? Generally release patch process works like this: - patch gets checked-in on the trunk - developer sends message to the code owner who approves

On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >>> This approach is fine for casual reader but >>> does not work for scripting or any automated >>> way of dealing with the build. >> Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the >> patch approval process? > > > Generally release patch

> This approach is fine for casual reader but > does not work for scripting or any automated > way of dealing with the build. Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the patch approval process? > I would like to propose addition of the > "folder/file (F)" field. The format > would be the same as used by Joe,Owen > and Justin This won't

On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:17 PM, 32bitmicro <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Recent code owner activities have led to > what I would call loss of referential integrity > in the CODE_OWNERS.TXT file. > > Changes are fine but the information in the > CODE_OWNERS.TXT does not allow to positively > identify code owner of the particular > file or patch.

> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com>wrote: > >> On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am >> not sure if it serves Chris's

On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com>wrote: > On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am > not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think

Hi Pawel, >> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing? > > Here is what happens. > > I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into > 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this fixes > PR/issue/crash so it is important. But are you the code owner > and do you approve? So I have to go and start checking

> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com> >> To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners >> >> >> On Nov 17, 2012, at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com> > To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners > > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pawel Wodnicki" <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 2:04:10 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release

> Understanding the internal llvm/clang structure is easy, > deducing the correct code owner is not due to the > vague and changing nature of the CODE_OWNERS.TXT Does not seem to me and many people around. If in doubt - ask at ML or IRC. > "Exception handling, Windows codegen, ARM EABI" Just for your information - this covers some lines in some files in llvm/CodeGen, some

Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. -Chris On Nov 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > >>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing? >> >> Here is what happens. >> >> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into >>

I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough. On Nov 17, 2012, at 2:51, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, I guess the code

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > >>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing? >> >> >> Here is what happens. >> >> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into >> 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this

Duncan, I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as one reassociate changeset: Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291? http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html Pawel > On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. > ... >>>

Hi Pawel, > I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as > one reassociate changeset: r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate. r168035 and r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think they should be merged as one changeset. > Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291? >

On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough. I agree. What problem

On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text file, or a section in the docs is enough. ^^ this Joe

The reassociate patch is also ok with me. -Chris On Nov 21, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > >> I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as >> one reassociate changeset: > > r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate. r168035 and > r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think