[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] "Living Downstream Without Drowning" BOF @ Dev Meeting

[David Chisnall via cfe-dev]

On 5 Nov 2015, at 11:43, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 5 November 2015 at 09:18, David Chisnall via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> but it would be good if we could have a stronger policy that stuff that is reverted goes into Phabricator and is not recommitted until the person who initially reverted it has signed off (or, at least, there’s a strong consensus that it’s the right thing).
> 
> I'm not sure we have that as a policy, but I assume this is the
> consensus. Though, sometimes, it happens. I'd say, if that was the
> only big problem you had in 4000 commits, means even with the revert
> policy, the tree is pretty stable. :)

It really was surprisingly painless, especially given that the MIPS back end merged a load of my patches with tweaks and bug fixes in between the two merges.  Finding the cause of each conflict and throwing away my local version when there was an improved version upstream was made very easy.

We really should document git-imerge somewhere public for the many people that end up maintaining their own downstream forks of LLVM.

David