[LLVMdev] code-owner sporks

[Greg Fitzgerald]

> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits.

No, this isn't viable under at least both assumptions:

1) Cost-benefit fails.  Github pull requests adds less value to the
community than llvm-commits.
2) No technical solution exists.  Notifications of Github pull
requests can't be sent to llvm-commits.

#1 may or may not be the case, which is the point of this experiment.
#2 is intentionally absurd.

-Greg

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
>> David A. Green wrote:
>>> I find llvm-commits daunting.  So much that I hesitate to do reviews.
>>> As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list.  There's a reason
>>> for that beyond lack of time.
>>
>> So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to
>> review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them?
>>
>> Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to monitor the
>> Pull Requests of a spork than to write a clever filter for
>> llvm-commits.  And we'll also say that it may or may not be easier for
>> reviewers to comment on a patch on Github than trying to reference
>> code blocks in llvm-commits email.  At this point we really don't know
>> if one solution is better than the other, but we have good reason to
>> believe Pull Requests might be a big win.  So rather than all the
>> talk, can we baby-step forward in a noncommittal way?
>>
>> How about allowing the code owner to add a line to CODE_OWNERS.TXT of
>> the location to submit patches?  If no location is given, assume
>> llvm-commits.  If the URI is a Github spork, the contributor should
>> make a Pull Request.
>
> This isn't viable; Github pull requests aren't visible on llvm-commits.
>
> -Eli