[llvm-dev] RFC: Release process changes

[John McCall via llvm-dev]

On 26 May 2020, at 18:24, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 05/21/2020 05:54 PM, John McCall wrote:
>> On 21 May 2020, at 14:59, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a few changes to the LLVM release process.  
>>> The
>>> current process is documented here:  
>>> https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html
>>>
>>> There are two parts to this proposal.  The first is a list of 
>>> clarifications,
>>> which are things we are currently doing that aren't documented. The 
>>> second
>>> is a list of changes which would actually modify how releases are 
>>> currently
>>> managed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *** Proposed Clarifications ***
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **  Release manager is allowed to commit changes to the release 
>>> branch without
>>>     code owner approval.  However, the release manager is encouraged 
>>> to consult
>>>     with code owners or patch reviewers for non-trivial changes.
>>>
>>> It's not practical to get code owner approval every time.  Either 
>>> because there
>>> is no code owner or because the number of backports is too high 
>>> (e.g. pre-rc1 / pre-rc2).
>>> This proposed clarification matches how releases are currently 
>>> managed.
>>
>> If this is how things are currently managed, it’s hard to argue 
>> against it,
>> but I do think that — independently — we should make a stronger 
>> effort to
>> ensure that we have active code owners covering the entire codebase.
>>
>> My sense is that the ownership problem is deepest in two specific 
>> parts
>> of the project: compiler-rt and LLVM itself.  Do you agree?
>>
>
> There are usually less backports for compiler-rt, so that hasn't been
> an issue for me, but I do agree that LLVM itself could use more code 
> owners.

Okay, thanks.

John.