On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's not what we've been doing for the last few years but if you're cool > with it then… > > > Clearly if there are major structural problems with a patch, it isn’t > appropriate, but a very common scenario is: > > person a) "here’s a patch” > person b) “looks good, here are a bunch of little things to fix” > person a) “done and committed!” > person b) “woot” > > If the feedback wasn’t incorporated right, the last line would be replaced > with “wait, you need to do this too!” and if atrocious crimes are committed, > then the patch gets reverted. This is pretty standard with post-commit > review. >
That's fair, it's not what's been going on for a while but I was likely going to ACK it anyway after a quick look. -eric > -Chris > > > > > On Mon Jan 06 2014 at 3:15:54 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > You should wait for an explicit ack on committing a patch if it's in >> > review. It's a bit anti-social to do so otherwise and that people are >> > waiting isn't a good enough reason to skip that. >> >> It is pretty common to commit after addressing a list of comments. >> Continuously iterating on patches over the span of weeks isn’t the normal >> practice. >> >> -Chris >> > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
