[lldb-dev] hold off on check-ins, please [ALL CLEAR]

[jingham at apple.com]

Excellent!  But except for a very few parts of lldb, llvm is really better viewed as a library we use, not as code we are developing.  So you really shouldn't have to update frequently except when working on that code, when the interfaces change, or when you want to verify that someone hasn't broken one of its functions.  It won't do any harm, of course, but there are already enough little interruptions in the course of an ordinary day, I don't feel the need to add more...

Jim

> On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:49 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> Moreover, I don't really want to know that somebody broke something in clang/llvm and then fixed it a couple of hours later.
> 
> FWIW, this doesn't really happen these days. Something broken in LLVM staying in tree for an hour is *extremely* rare, and usually has 10s of people up in arms trying to get it fixed on the list. We have build bots and other systems which ensure that the tree is in a working state at all times.