[PATCH] D20260: IR: Introduce local_unnamed_addr attribute.

Tue May 17 23:33:14 PDT 2016

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On May 17, 2016, at 11:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 17, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> Re-creating a revision is not gonna help to put this history back on the
>> mailing list.
>>
>>
>> > , 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.
>>
>> I judge based on the title, and then click on the link.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> We all agree that it is *better* to have llvm-commit as an initial
>> subscriber, but unless someone put the manpower in to get it enforced by
>> phabricator, we'll have to live with the fact that occasionally it will be
>> missing.
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure the warning that turns up in Phab suggests creating a new
> code review with *-commits on from the start. I'd encourage this to be the
> path we encourage/request when we see this (for myself, it's really obvious
> when someone creates a review with me as a reviewer but without the mailing
> list - such a mail ends up in my inbox, whereas if it had the mailing list
> on it it'd be in my mailing list bucket). I think we should do it early and
> often. Yes, fixing Phab would be better. But I think restarting the review
> is better than continuing it without the original/initial context - earlier
> the better, before lots of conversation has already happened off list.
>
>
> That's the point: *after* some round of reviews were already conducted on
> Phabricator, the most important context for the review *is* now this review
> history and this is what is important to preserve, and this is why
> restarting a new revision in this condition is a non-starter to me.
>

Except none of that is on the mailing list archive or otherwise preserved
in LLVM's system of record. It was pretty well discussed when Phab was
introduced that the mailing list would be the system of record and Phab
just a tool. If it's not on the list, it's not here.

In the case where a bunch of review without the list - we should
reintroduce any of that context/discussion. I don't know whether a new
thread's especially necessary, but at least an authoritative email with all
that context being summarized into this thread is called for. It'll be
harder to follow the thread (people expect the first email to have the
introductory context, etc) but not impossible.

I'd probably favor a new thread, with the old one referenced for
archaeology - the current state can be summarized, any outstanding comments
can be replied to in the new thread with any context quoted as needed.

- Dave

>
> A revision on Phabricator that has no history can be nuked without
> consequence of course...
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Seriously?? The email title says "IR: Introduce local_unnamed_addr
>> attribute", that pretty clear IMO.
>>
>> >
>> >>    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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160517/50fbb4e8/attachment.html>