JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/CodeOwners.rst:7-8 +particular part of LLDB are reviewed, either by themself or by someone else. +They are also the gatekeepers for their part of LLDB, with the final word on +what goes in or not. + ---------------- DavidSpickett wrote: > JDevlieghere wrote: > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > This could be taken to mean every review must have approval from a code > > > owner, on top of whatever other review has been done. Is that the intent? > > > Someone coming from a project with strong maintainer rules (e.g. GDB, so > > > I gather) may take it that way. > > I copied this from the Clang `CodeOwners.rst` with the aim of being > > consistent, but I'm happy to tweak it. We could qualify the last sentence > > with something like "when consensus cannot be reached" or if we think > > "gatekeeper" is too strong of a work maybe we can use "tie-breaker", though > > I like that the former implies a sense of duty. Happy to take suggestions! > My understanding was that llvm in general didn't have this hard requirement > for an owner to acknowledge every review. > > So yeah: > "They are also the gatekeepers for their part of LLDB, with the final word on > what goes in or not when consensus cannot be reached." > > Sounds good to me. > My understanding was that llvm in general didn't have this hard requirement > for an owner to acknowledge every review. Yup, that's my understanding as well! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156949/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156949 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
