[lldb-dev] large patches vs incremental changes

[Zachary Turner]

I wanted to open a discussion about the policy regarding patch submission.

LLVM, and most of its other subprojects, have adopted a policy of making
small, incremental changes, as outlined here [
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-a-major-change].   It
seems that either we don't have this on LLDB, or we do have it and it's
just not enforced.

I personally have a strong preference for the incremental approach.  All
the reasons are outlined at the above link, so I don't think I need to
repeat them.  Is it possible to move towards this model with LLDB?

Additionally, I frequently see patches going in without review.  What is
LLDB's policy on this?  Are we're ok with having broken code upstreamed for
a short time on the condition that the committer is acting in good faith to
fix it as soon as possible?  For example, I've had a patch up for 6 days
that I've pinged on a couple of times, with no traction.  I've been waiting
because I was under the impression that getting a review was a requirement.
 But sometimes I see patches that seem non-trivial getting pushed straight
to the server without any kind of review.  So I'm not sure if my
understanding is correct.  Either way, some clarification woudl be nice.

Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140701/c3b0ec34/attachment.html>