[llvm] r351038 - Add support for prefix-only CLI options

[via llvm-commits]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Preud'homme [mailto:thomasp at graphcore.ai]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 5:51 PM
> To: Joel E. Denny
> Cc: LLVM Commits; Robinson, Paul
> Subject: Re: [llvm] r351038 - Add support for prefix-only CLI options
> 
> Hi Joel,
> 
> From: "Joel E. Denny" <jdenny.ornl at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 22:23
> To: Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai>
> Cc: LLVM Commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>, "paul.robinson at sony.com"
> <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> Subject: Re: [llvm] r351038 - Add support for prefix-only CLI options
> 
> > Hi Thomas, Paul,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:14 PM Thomas Preud'homme via llvm-commits
> <mailto:llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Author: thopre
> > Date: Mon Jan 14 01:28:53 2019
> > New Revision: 351038
> >
> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=351038&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Add support for prefix-only CLI options
> >
> > Summary:
> > Add support for options that always prefix their value, giving an error
> > if the value is in the next argument or if the option is given a value
> > assignment (ie. opt=val). This is the desired behavior for the -D option
> > of FileCheck for instance.
> >
> > Copyright:
> > - Linaro (changes in version 2 of revision D55940)
> > - GraphCore (changes in later versions and introduced when creating
> >   D56549)
> >
> > That copyright notice wasn't there when we reviewed.  Likewise for
> D55940.
> >
> > Was that an accident, or is this something people need to do now
> sometimes?  I don't know whether it has any legal significance.
> >
> 
> My apologies, I didn't realize I needed another round of review for that
> copyright information. My employment changed between the start of the
> review and the patch being approved. I included the information about
> which part of the code is under which copyright because the commit only
> includes my current email and thus does not mention my previous employer.
> This is akin to contributing a patch under one employer and another patch
> modifying the same area of code under a different one. I will not do this
> for patches written under a single copyright as is the case for the patch
> in https://reviews.llvm.org/D56789.
> 
> Please let me know if this poses any problem.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas

It's unusual to change employers mid-patch, and I appreciate that you 
are being careful about it. However, rather than just making up a way
to address it, better to contact the LLVM Foundation directly and ask
(board at llvm.org). You probably won't get an answer quickly, but at least 
they will be aware that the situation exists.  Especially if Graphcore 
and Linaro have both signed the new license agreement, there should be 
little if any practical consequence.
--paulr