[PATCH] Introduce llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h utility class

[Philip Reames via llvm-commits]

On 02/12/2016 04:52 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:58 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com 
> <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Philip Reames
>     <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>>     If so, that would resolve the licensing concern.  In the future,
>>     let's make sure that gets mentioned in the review/commit thread
>>     to avoid confusion.
>
>     I can understand your concern, but for better or worse, we don’t
>     ask llvm contributors to state the provenance of their code that
>     they are posting.  If you’re asking for some new rule to be put in
>     place, please specify what the rule is and what the rationale for
>     that rule is.
>
>
> I don't want to speak for Philip, but I think the thing that made this 
> a bit different was the explicit statement that the code came from 
> some particular source (a different open source project in this case) 
> and that triggered a concern about whether it was reasonable to 
> contribute it. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
>
> For example, when someone contributed a patch from the GCC fork of the 
> sanitizer runtimes, we asked similar questions to what Philip has 
> asked here because the statement that the patch came from somewhere 
> else seemed directly in conflict  with the contributor being able to 
> correctly contribute it to LLVM.
>
> That pattern might be a reasonable basis for new guidelines, or might 
> not. I'm not really trying to have an opinion about that, just giving 
> some other context.
>
> -Chandler
Chandler explained my thought process better than I would have managed.  :)

Philip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160212/26703842/attachment.html>