[LLVMdev] code-owner sporks
dag at cray.com
dag at cray.com
Fri Nov 16 14:42:54 PST 2012
<dag at cray.com> writes:
> Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes:
>>> Really, patches get dropped *all the time* to the point where pings are
>>> a regular part of the development process. That's a huge waste of time
>>> for everyone.
>> It's only a waste of time if your workflow is entirely synchronous
>> with patch review. Most of us have a number of things that we can work
>> on, so letting a patch chill for a while on the list isn't a big deal
>> because we just go on and do something else.
> Of course, that's easier with git. :)
Just to follow up, I agree that people shouldn't be stuck for days
waiting for their patch to be reviewed. The cost is more subtle than
- I have to *remember* I submitted the patch (not hard, but it is a
- I have to save that e-mail from llvm-commits so I can refer to it when
the inevitable ping is necessary.
- I have to wade through tons and tons of commit e-mails searching for a
response to my patch (for some reason the mailing list software often
breaks threading). This is a more general problem with the current
review process, not strictly a timeliness issue.
- I have to send a ping e-mail.
- Now I have to look for responses to *two* e-mails.
In short, e-mail is a very poor vehicle for managing this kind of
process. I hope that the patch queue in testing helps alleviate the
poor response time problem. Even just an acknowlegement, "hey I got
your patch but it will be a few days before I can review it", would help
More information about the llvm-dev