[PATCH] Introduce llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h utility class

[Chris Lattner via llvm-commits]

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:58 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>> If so, that would resolve the licensing concern.  In the future, let's make sure that gets mentioned in the review/commit thread to avoid confusion.
> 
> I can understand your concern, but for better or worse, we don’t ask llvm contributors to state the provenance of their code that they are posting.  If you’re asking for some new rule to be put in place, please specify what the rule is and what the rationale for that rule is.
> 
> I don't want to speak for Philip, but I think the thing that made this a bit different was the explicit statement that the code came from some particular source (a different open source project in this case) and that triggered a concern about whether it was reasonable to contribute it. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
> 
> For example, when someone contributed a patch from the GCC fork of the sanitizer runtimes, we asked similar questions to what Philip has asked here because the statement that the patch came from somewhere else seemed directly in conflict  with the contributor being able to correctly contribute it to LLVM.

Ok, yes, I think it makes sense for someone moving code from one project to the other to reassure that they have the rights to do so.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160212/9340786c/attachment.html>