[PATCH] D20260: IR: Introduce local_unnamed_addr attribute.

[Justin Bogner via llvm-commits]

Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>     On May 17, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
>    
>     On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits <
>     llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>    
>         Seriously I absolutely don't get the "start a new revision" thing
>         because the initial email was not on llvm-commit. Really what is the
>         rational?
>        
>         We are losing the history and the threading for the review, this is
>         really annoying.
>        
>         So big -1
>
>     I don't care very much about starting a new revision.
>    
>     Justin and others who don't use phabricator asked for this because that is
>     what causes an email with a patch file to be sent to llvm-commits, and so
>     I've been trying to encourage it based on their request.
>
> There *has been* an email with a patch sent to llvm-commit after the first
> update to the diff: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160516/357163.html
> Just "having a patch sent to llvm-commit" can be accomplished with an manual
> email answering to the revision instead of create a new one from scratch.

Yes, there's a patch, and it explains what's happening as "Minimise the
diff a little" and "Add assembler/bitcode test". The description of
what's happening is completely missing. The comments so far aren't on
the mailing list at all, and somebody who reads this mail first has no
idea what's going on. Is the patch something interesting? Should I spend
my time following the link and catching up? It also has a subject that
starts with "Re:", which makes me and my email filter think I've already
read the first patch and decided whether or not to pay attention.

Essentially, patches that start without llvm commits don't look like
mails that need to be read.

The first email in a patch review thread is incredibly important. It
summarizes the point of the patch, provides context, and has the patch.
Coming into the conversation half way through is very difficult.

> That said the patch is always a mere two-clicks away from the email: http://
> reviews.llvm.org/D20260?download=true
> One could even write a plugin for his email client to act on link in the email
> "http://reviews.llvm.org/D20260" and automatically curl the latest patch.

How do I know if I need or want to look at it? Is "Minimise the diff a
little" an interesting patch?

>     There is still the fact that even the initial phab revision has
>     essentially no context. I've skimmed thin three or four times and I'm not
>     sure yet what the motivation is... I'm sure it has one, I just can't find
>     it.
>
> s/Initial phab revision/current phab revision/
>
> Yes, I'd expect a phabricator revision to have a correct description.