[PATCH] D21256: Improved Visual Studio 2015 visualization of SmallVectorImpl

[Zachary Turner via cfe-commits]

I agree that it can be annoying to say "hey guys, i would normally do post
commit review on this, but i wanted to give the courtesy of a heads up",
and then potentially waiting an indeterminate amount of time.

I think that actually discourages these kind of changes going up at all,
because people will just say "well that's easy i just won't give the heads
up then", which i think would be a net loss
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Michael Spertus <mike at spertus.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > While I understand the initial reasoning. I have found that this is like
> a
> > hundred times better for working on Clang in practice and can't imagine
> > working without it. The point is that many Clang data structures contain
> > SmallVectors and having to do zero expansion clicks instead of multiple
> each
> > time you take a step through the code is really helpful. If you want me
> to
> > back it out and rereview we can, but I'd encourage you to try it out
> first.
>
> Yeah, SmallVectors are somewhat click-heavy in MSVC currently. I've
> not had the chance to try this patch out on anything practical, but it
> seems like it is an improvement from what I've seen.
>
> > To ask more about the aside, I'm sorry if I violated community norms.
> Let me
> > tell you my reasoning, and you can clarify how I should handle in the
> > future: Aaron approved me to do post-commit reviews on natvis changes,
> which
> > I have done frequently. For this change, I wasn't putting it into
> > phabricator because I thought pre-commit approval is required but more
> as a
> > heads up. Should I change that to be if I don't feel comfortable
> submitting
> > without phabricator, then do the full review process?
>
> When you want to give the community a heads up on something, putting
> it into phab (or starting an RFC thread on the mailing list) is a good
> choice. However, when you start a patch in phab, it's good form to
> wait for a reviewer to sign off before committing even if you could
> also handle it with post-commit review. I'm not too worried about this
> change, so I'm not suggesting it should be backed out.
>
> ~Aaron
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> As for the original change proposed: My guiding principle would be "do
> >> whatever std::vector does". (& that's what I did when implementing GDB
> >> pretty printers for SmallVector/SmallString/ArrayRef, etc... )
> >>
> >> An aside: We generally don't do time limited reviews like this. Either
> >> something needs review because you're not sure about it, or it doesn't.
> It
> >> sounds like the feedback you were looking for probably would've been
> fine a
> >> post-commit review feedback just as easily & perhaps might've been a
> better
> >> option. (while in this case it was fine - it's sort of a community
> >> habit/standards thing - we don't want to create the idea that lack of
> >> feedback is consent/approval in the review process)
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Mike Spertus via cfe-commits
> >> <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> mspertus closed this revision.
> >>> mspertus added a comment.
> >>>
> >>> revision 272525
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21256
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cfe-commits mailing list
> >>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160613/94740fbc/attachment.html>