Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-06 Thread James Henderson via lldb-dev
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the community consensus is that we should continue to use Phabricator, and Phabricator is not being provided/maintained by the LLVM Foundation, isn't it moot what the LLVM Foundation/Infrastructure Working Group recommends/wants to happen? The current maintainers wou

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Tanya Lattner via lldb-dev
Hello! The purpose of this email is to start a discussion about our code review tools. No decisions have been made about changing tools. The idea behind a timeline is so that information could be gathered in a timely manner. The Infrastructure Working Group was formed to bring together community

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-dev
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 19:16, Tom Stellard wrote: > However, it's not a good position for the Board to be responsible > for something that it doesn't have control over. If Google decided to > stop hosting > Phabricator for some reason (unlikely, but not impossible), the Board > would be > respons

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Philip Reames via lldb-dev
+1 to Renato's response here.  I had the same thought, and Renato phrased it much better than I'd have managed. Philip On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: - Any other informati

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Tom Stellard via lldb-dev
On 10/5/21 10:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:09 AM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-dev
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 18:09, Tom Stellard wrote: > In my opinion, this is not a technical issue. I find that surprising. But maybe it's just me. > The Board owns the infrastructure > for the project and is responsible for ensuring that it is well maintained > and > functional. From the blo

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Tom Stellard via lldb-dev
On 10/5/21 9:47 AM, Renato Golin wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors make the best decision. - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final d

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

2021-10-05 Thread Renato Golin via lldb-dev
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 17:06, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors > make the best decision. - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision about using > GitHub Pull Requests and then co