[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

[Duncan Sands]

Hi Pawel,

> I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as
> one reassociate changeset:

r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate.  r168035 and
r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think they should be merged as one
changeset.

> Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291?
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html

No, he didn't OK it yet.  Hopefully he will!

Ciao, Duncan.

>
> Pawel
>
>
>
>
>> On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged.
>> ...
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/155994.html
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156206.html
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks Chris.  Can you please also give your go ahead for this nasty
>> reassociate
>> infinite loop (PR14060):
>>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html
>>
>>
>> Best wishes, Duncan.
>>
>>
>