[llvm-commits] [llvm] r167740 - in /llvm/trunk: lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp test/Transforms/Reassociate/mul_neg.ll test/Transforms/Reassociate/multistep.ll

[Shuxin Yang]

I hope each pass has more than one owner. In case one owner is busy, the 
other one could response in
reasonable short period of time.

During the dev-meeting, I heard quite a few complaint about the pailful 
"pings".

If the code review take more than one week, it basically means the 
author who make the change need
to re-test from scratch. This cost is reasonable for big change. it is 
way to high for tiny to medium change.

It is also make thing hard for incremental change

On 11/12/2012 07:00 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Eli,
>>>>
>>>> The approach seems sound to me. Since no one has raised design concerns at this point and the fact this is a a bug fix for a crash, I think it's appropriate for review after commit.
>>> This patch isn't "obvious", and Shuxin is still new to this part of the code.  Unless it's been reviewed it shouldn't go in.
>> The patch was submitted for review back on 11/5 and there were some discussions on 11/6 and 11/7. There were no additional comments since then. Should it continue to sit in review limbo?
> The standard response, and what everyone else in this position does
> (and there are *many*...) is to ping, asking for an update.
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits