[llvm-commits] [llvm] r134907 - /llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/

[John Criswell]

On 7/12/11 11:15 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> [snip]
> I understand, but the policy of the project is not based around the submitter's schedule.  While I imagine that it is *extra* frustrating to hear this, the policies of the project are aimed at making sure the *right code* goes in, not in *reducing barriers* to submission.  Having a high quality bar is a good thing.
>
> That said, not getting prompt review is a bug, not a feature.  The reality is that we're all human, and all busy.  Part of working successfully with the project is finding ways that increase the odds that someone will say "go ahead and commit, it seems obvious".  Separating trivial and mechanical changes from the "interesting" ones is a great way to do that.  Making the "interesting" changes tiny is another great way.

What is your recommendation for something like the SAFECode patch?  The 
SAFECode patch adds several new transforms and a run-time library to 
LLVM.  It is large merely because it adds new code.  The transform 
passes are pretty simple and are easier to review individually, so I 
could split them into separate patches.  However, the transforms are 
useless individually; they have to be used in conjunction to do anything 
meaningful.

Would you recommend splitting the patch into several smaller ones in 
which each patch adds one of the transforms?  Or should the patch stay 
as a whole for review?

-- John T.

>
> -Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits