On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Joao Matos <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Author: triton >> Date: Fri Aug 31 13:45:21 2012 >> New Revision: 163013 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=163013&view=rev >> Log: >> Improved MSVC __interface support by adding first class support for it, >> instead of aliasing to "struct" which had some incorrect behaviour. Patch by >> David Robins. > > > For the record, I do not think this should have been committed. David mailed > the patch and you reviewed it, but both of you are in the > 'commit-after-approval' group as far as I'm aware. This is clearly not an > obvious patch, it as a huge extension to the Clang AST. > > John McCall reviewed previous versions of this patch and suggested the > changes that led to the current form. Why didn't you wait until he approved > it? Was there some email that didn't make it to the list approving the > patch? (I know that email was getting dropped with earlier phases of the > review for that patch...) > > I don't think we can just revert this though because so many patches have > gone in behind it. > > I can't even post-commit review this because several files have had *all* > lines changed due to your client thrashing line endings!!! This is really > terrible. I know we already discussed this some, but let me re-iterate: you > must not submit patches with thrashed line endings like this. > > > A whitespace-insensitive diff will work, although of course that's not the > default for most tools, and it's definitely going to complicate git blames > forever on these files.
(pedantry that seems to warrant being pointed out every time this comes up: git blame -w (& not entirely portable: svn blame -x -w)) Though that still leaves our viewvc providing less-than-ideal blame. > > John, thoughts on how to handle this? How can you effectively review it? > > > I can offer to back out the entire sequence of patches and essentially > return us to before this patch went in, and then perhaps we can get > meaningful diffs that you can review? > > > Ugh. Unfortunately, that will just make naive tools say that *you* made all > the changes (only due to svn's interference — IIRC pure git can preserve the > authorship / intent history, but...), which is actively worse. I think we > just live with it. > > Joao, I'm sure it's frustrating to not have things reviewed as quickly as > you'd like, but committing without approval is not a way to achieve this. > You pushed the envelope a bit before; if you continue this pattern, we may > have to revoke your commit privileges, which obviously we'd prefer not to > do. > > I'll try to review this quickly. > > John. > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
