[LLVMdev] Code Owner for OpenMP (runtime)

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> To: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> Cc: "James H Cownie" <james.h.cownie at intel.com>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Andrey Churbanov" <Andrey.Churbanov at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 5:39:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Code Owner for OpenMP (runtime)
> 
> On 1 May 2015 at 10:11, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > While I'm always happy to see more maintainers (which means better
> > chance to get code reviewed!) and Hal is an all-around good guy,
> > this,
> > IMHO, sets a bad and dangerous precedent.
> 
> Hi Andrey,
> 
> I'm in no way affiliated with Intel, if anything, we're fierce
> competitors! :) But I totally agree with you.

I also agree with this; one of the regular developers of the runtime library should be the code owner. The best choice for code owner is someone who understands the code, and the developers, so that the code owner can:

 1. Find appropriate reviewers for patches (or review the patches)

 2. Evaluate the risks of incorporating changes into the release branch

For both of these Andrey Churbanov seems like a good choice, and I trust Jim's judgment in recommending him.

 -Hal

> 
> This has nothing to do with which company owns what, since code
> owners
> don't really own anything.
> 
> For example, I am the code owner of ARM on the Linux side, Evan Cheng
> is owner of the ARM on the Darwin side. Go back and count how many
> ARM
> commits were reviewed and approved without our review. While you're
> at
> it, count how many times other people trumped me on ARM reviews,
> because they knew better, or because they were right and I was wrong,
> or just because more people agreed with their solution.
> 
> Being a code owner doesn't mean you can do anything with it. It also
> doesn't mean you can commit anything to your hearts' desire. It means
> you're the poor bastard that will have to scrape unreviewed
> submissions if no one else wants to. It means you'll have to stick
> your head into arguments to try and calm people down, and probably
> get
> burned along the way. It's a thankless job, it doesn't fare in my
> "annual review", it makes enemies more than friends, and it
> frequently
> interrupts my other duties.
> 
> Search the list and you'll see a lot of code owners asking for review
> on their patches on code they own. Why? Because it involves more than
> just a silly change, or an obvious fix, and it probably needs design
> of other parts of the compiler to change. Code owners have to be
> responsible for the quality all code, which most of the time means
> ask
> other people what they think, getting consensus. It's about the work
> you put in, not where you're from.
> 
> There's no reason why Churbanov shouldn't be the code owner. Poor
> Andrey... :)
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory