[LLVMdev] code-owner sporks

[dag at cray.com]

Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes:

>> I think the main benefit of a scheme like this would be that a pull request
>> tells a code owner which patches require their attention. As a contributor
>> it would be nice to see your patch in a queue somewhere rather than just be
>> buried down the mailing list. When patches are sent to llvm-commits it can
>> be hard to tell if a code owner has noticed the patch because it is a very
>> high-volume list.
>
> It might seem intimidating at first, but it will blow over really
> quick once you get one or two patches in and you learn how to do
> incremental development. 

This is simply not true, IME.

> Ping at appropriate time intervals (~3 days is sane); 

3 days is *not* sane.  The fact that we require pings at all indicates a
broken process.  I don't understand why there is such resistance to a
patch queue.  I don't even care about the revision control system as
much as I do about a managed patch system.  We have a system for bugs,
which are _much_ less frequent occurrences than patches.

I can't stall my work for 3 days waiting for someone not to see my
patch.

> I think the most pings I've seen before an answer is Ping^4 ("Fix
> cmake for Hexagon cross compilers"), and the reviewers were very
> apologetic about the situation.

The reviewers are *always* very apologetic.  That doesn't help the
developer, unfortunately.

> Looking back at your submission history, it looks like your
> patches have been really "meaty" patches; by that I mean that they
> affect core functionality and need a careful review by one of a small
> number of people who really understand that part of the code;
> understandably, these patches are more likely to go unanswered,
> especially if you haven't gotten a foothold in that part of the tree.

Why is that at alkl understandable?  It's understandable that it might
take a while top review them but to not get an acknowledgement at all?
That is never understandable.

> It *would* be nice for a code-owner to have some way to see what needs
> to be reviewed, but a git mirror on github is not going to do that for
> them in any way.

Ok, so lets do it some other way.

                           -David