ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > > > (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.
Thanks. I'll try to add you for future reviewings. > > > 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. To be honest, this is not what I feel at least for coroutines and modules for a long time. I had multiple experience that some patches doesn't get reviewed for months. I still believe it will work better if I can push some simple patches directly. 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
