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

[32bitmicro]

> The reassociate patch is also ok with me.
> 

Committed revision 168489.

> -Chris
> 
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>