[PATCH] Initial instrumentation based PGO implementation

[Eric Christopher]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's not what we've been doing for the last few years but if you're cool
> with it then…
>
>
> Clearly if there are major structural problems with a patch, it isn’t
> appropriate, but a very common scenario is:
>
> person a) "here’s a patch”
> person b) “looks good, here are a bunch of little things to fix”
> person a) “done and committed!”
> person b) “woot”
>
> If the feedback wasn’t incorporated right, the last line would be replaced
> with “wait, you need to do this too!” and if atrocious crimes are committed,
> then the patch gets reverted.  This is pretty standard with post-commit
> review.
>

That's fair, it's not what's been going on for a while but I was
likely going to ACK it anyway after a quick look.

-eric

> -Chris
>
>
>
>
> On Mon Jan 06 2014 at 3:15:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You should wait for an explicit ack on committing a patch if it's in
>> > review. It's a bit anti-social to do so otherwise and that people are
>> > waiting isn't a good enough reason to skip that.
>>
>> It is pretty common to commit after addressing a list of comments.
>> Continuously iterating on patches over the span of weeks isn’t the normal
>> practice.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>