[PATCH] fix llvm linker issue with dbg.declare

[Bob Wilson]

Eli,

This is not a new patch review policy.  It is the old policy:

LLVM has a code review policy. Code review is one way to increase the quality of software. We generally follow these policies:
All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed before they are committed to the repository.
Code reviews are conducted by email, usually on the llvm-commits list.
Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after. We expect major changes to be reviewed before being committed, but smaller changes (or changes where the developer owns the component) can be reviewed after commit.
The developer responsible for a code change is also responsible for making all necessary review-related changes.
Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the patch is ready to be committed.
I specifically asked Manman to commit this without waiting for a review, because I do not consider it to be a "significant change".  It was nice of her to ask for a pre-commit review, but I did not think that was necessary.  There have been a lot of new contributors to LLVM recently, and we have consequently been asking for more pre-commit reviews, but in general, experienced LLVM developers can go with post-commit reviews for changes like this.  Manman has been actively contributing to LLVM for almost a year, so I think we can trust her.

On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Chad Rosier <mcrosier at apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> Since I got no response on this patch and we need this patch soon, I committed at r173946.
>>> 
>>> Manman,
>>> It may have been best to continue pressing for a review first.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>>>> If you have any concern about this patch, please review after commit.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, it's good to know there is a new patch review policy for LLVM.
>>>> Thanks, Manman.
>>> 
>>> Eli,
>>> What was the point of this comment?
>> 
>> The point was to express the same thing you said above. The sarcastic
>> tone may have been uncalled for, but stems from bitter experience.
> 
> I'm sorry you've had a number of poor experiences, but lets try to be constructive/positive despite them.
> 
>> Having had the pleasure (on multiple occasions  for multiple code
>> areas) to chase code owners for weeks with multiple list & IRC pings
>> before getting the LGTM, it hurts to see the honor code broken by a
>> review-less commit made less than 48 hours after the initial request,
>> because "we need this patch soon".
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Eli.  I'm sure it's very frustrating.
> 
>> Eli
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130130/819b5364/attachment.html>