Transfer ownership of the XCore backend

[Eric Christopher via llvm-commits]

I'll agree. It'd be good to get a few patches in first. While I recognize
that the ownership is largely "company based" the ramp up process for a new
contributor isn't zero yet :)

-eric

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:07 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> (FWIW - probably worth discussing on llvm-dev, rather than the ownership
> change (well, sounds more like adoption, since the target is currently
> ownerless in practice) to a new contributor getting lost in the noise of
> llvm-commits)
>
> I'd lean towards "some patches first/ownership second" but wouldn't really
> object to the other way around, given the nature of a target being
> maintained by the manufacturer, etc.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:12 AM Nigel Perks via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> OK, thanks. Yes, we certainly want to be actively involved, fixing bugs,
>> adapting to new APIs, and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
>> *Sent:* 23 March 2020 16:56
>> *To:* Nigel Perks <nigelp at xmos.com>; llvm-commits ML <
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Transfer ownership of the XCore backend
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll point out that getting commit access is as easy as emailing Chris.
>> :)
>>
>> I would encourage you to post patches, but that can happen in either
>> order w.r.t. the code owner change as far as I'm concerned.  Just be
>> prepared to follow through and be actively involved.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> On 3/23/20 9:18 AM, Nigel Perks wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback, Philip. I will make some patches to the existing
>> backend before proposing code owner change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Nigel Perks
>> *Sent:* 23 March 2020 16:04
>> *To:* Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
>> <listmail at philipreames.com>; llvm-commits ML
>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Cc:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> <clattner at nondot.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: Transfer ownership of the XCore backend
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the quick reply. I am happy to do what the community thinks
>> best. The current named code owner has left XMOS, where the backend was
>> written for the XMOS chip. We want to merge the current upstream backend
>> with our shipping version, and then maintain it upstream. But it’s true I
>> have no record of code patches yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
>> *Sent:* 23 March 2020 15:59
>> *To:* Nigel Perks <nigelp at xmos.com>; llvm-commits ML <
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Cc:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Transfer ownership of the XCore backend
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems very strange to be listing someone in code owners without commit
>> access?
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> On 3/23/20 7:57 AM, Nigel Perks via llvm-commits wrote:
>>
>> Not a code patch, just to update CODE_OWNERS.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have tried to follow the instructions in Developer Policy and
>> Contributing, but please tell me if I should do anything differently.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not have commit access, so please can this be committed if it is
>> satisfactory.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have cc’d Chris Lattner for review, as we agreed the change on
>> llvm-dev. Again please tell me if this is not right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nigel Perks
>>
>> XMOS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20200323/7c0bdf86/attachment.html>