[cfe-dev] Python 3 compatibility for clang bindings

[David Blaikie via cfe-dev]

Generally once you send code for review, if no review is forthcoming the
next step(s) are to find a specific reviewer (looking at the blame lists
for the files you're changing can give you some hints there) to CC on the
review thread and/or to 'ping' (send a reply-all to the thread with the
word "ping" usually) the thread on a no-more-than-weekly basis, in case
anyone missed it/was too busy the first time it was sent.

One thing I will suggest, from a cursory glance, is that formatting changes
along with semantic changes in a single patch are generally frowned upon -
it's probably best just to implement the semantic change alone for now &
ask if the formatting change is desirable (either just ask the reviewer
directly, or ask in the form of a separate patch submission (either
separate email thread or as a separately attached patch to the existing
thread in a "oh, and I have this too if you think it's a good idea"))

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Russell Keith-Magee via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’ve recently submitted a patch to cfe-patch updating the Python bindings
> for clang to be compatible with Python 3:
>
>
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160111/146926.html
>
> However, it’s not clear what the next step in the process is. Can anyone
> advise what the next steps would be in getting this patch committed?
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160120/50a2a895/attachment.html>