similar to: [RFC] High-Level Code-Review Documentation Update

+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

> > 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

Yeah, +1 that people from the same organization are sometimes the only ones working on a certain feature/area. (certainly I'd expect some discussion about the feature in general to be discussed outside that group if it's in any way contentious - but some stuff's clear enough (I think I implemented debug_types years ago, likely with only Eric's approval, both of us being at Google

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Mehdi, David, > > I think you're both pointing out exceptions rather than the general rule. > I tried to indicate their might be reasonable exceptions (see the second > sentence past Mehdi's quote), but in general, particularly for new > contributors, I think it is important we

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:23 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 12/2/19 10:05 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > >> Mehdi, David, >> >> I think you're both pointing out exceptions rather than the general >> rule. I tried

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.

Thanks to both! I'll update the docs. Best, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 5:24 μ.μ., ο/η Florian Hahn < florian_hahn at apple.com> έγραψε: > Hi, > > > On 1 Mar 2020, at 14:44, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > I recently was granted commit access, but I'm not really sure what is the > process. > The

Hi Hal, > Documentation updates should also be reviewed. Of course, I meant that I'll open a patch in Phabricator. :) I didn't know about code-review patch, thanks. I'll defer the update of developer policy until the other patch is committed so we can have a clearer picture. Kind regards, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 6:17 μ.μ., ο/η Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>

On 12/2/19 8:52 AM, Hubert Tong via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:46 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >   3. All comments by reviewers should be addressed by the patch > author. > It is generally expected that suggested changes will be incorporated > into the

Hi, I've recently submitted a patch to llvm-commits (as requested by https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch) and the mailing list answered with a notice that my message is held for moderator approval (with the reason: "Post by non-member to a members-only list"). I'm therefore wondering if I should've submitted my patch via Phabricator

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, "Rafael Ávila de Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>, "Michael Spencer" > <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>, "Chandler Carruth"

I don't intend to weigh in on either side, but just give a perspective on a few questions asked. >From an outsiders perspective, that list isn't what I'd typically describe as the workflow, since it makes "fork" and "branch" sound like difficult operations. This sounds akin to thinking that someone would reclone the svn repo before working on a new

Hi, > Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:59:56 -0600 > From: Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Submitting patches for LLVM -- llvm-commits > vs. Phabricator? > > Hi, > The current practice is to upload a

I think that it's really important that we try to strike some balance here. Based on my experience, this thread, and offline conversations, two things seem clear to me: 1. Overall, Phabricator is a superior tool for managing code reviews and some related processes (although GitHub's tools certainly have some benefits, and both are getting better over time). 2. Not accepting GitHub PRs

I also find the "Reviewed by" tag useful (as well as the review link), for the same reasons. In fact, I don't even use arcanist to push commits, so I do it all by hand, and only include the "Reviewed by" and "Differential Revision" tags. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 20:55, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think

Many git commits in the monorepo look like the following: [Tag0][Tag1] Title line Summary: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque mauris neque, porta nec tristique at, sagittis vel nisi. Fusce pharetra nunc et mauris consequat venenatis. Reviewers: username0, username1 Reviewed By: username0 Subscribers: username2, username3,

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:32 AM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 11/7/19 10:13 AM, Jameson Nash wrote: > > I don't intend to weigh in on either side, but just give a perspective on > a few questions asked. > > From an outsiders perspective, that list isn't what I'd typically describe > as the workflow, since it makes

Yup, Phabricator is generally preferred for patches. Additionally, are you subscribed to the mailing list? I can't find where I read it now, but I believe your messages are held for moderation if you aren't subscribed. You can subscribe at http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits if needed. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Christoph Kindl

Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember two cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is that as a community we should honor "revert for more design review" requests unconditionally. What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in

The limitation with the "Reviewed by" line is that if you just use `arc` it indicates who was added as reviewer on the revision, but not who approved it. Because of this, I am wary of relying on this line for anything. If you want to know who reviewed a change, better click on the Differential Revision link and go to the source of truth. -- Mehdi On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:44 AM