mizvekov wrote: > That's a pretty substantial policy change to propose, and this probably isn't > the place to propose/discuss it. If that's your intent, probably best to take > that up on discord. >
I am not proposing a policy change. I believe the current policy is aimed at giving an escape hatch for projects which there is basically one or two active developers. I am pointing out that I believe we don't need for that escape hatch to apply to any parts of clang currently. > (FWIW, check some of the recent modules changes @ChuanqiXu9 has been working > on to see that reviewer bandwidth here is pretty thin (& my experience in > LLVM in general, including clang, is that reviewer bandwidth is pretty thin - > though it is something we should address & I do think it might be time to > change LLVM's post-commit review policy, but I think it'll be a substantial > amount of work)) If you feel bandwidth for modules is pretty thin, I put myself available as a reviewer, so feel free to ping me. I may not have a lot of time available for fully reviewing big patches, but I can certainly help with the smaller patches such as this one. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75912 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
