On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21/05/2014 23:19, David Majnemer wrote: > >> Author: majnemer >> Date: Wed May 21 15:19:59 2014 >> New Revision: 209319 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=209319&view=rev >> Log: >> Sema: Implement DR244 >> >> Summary: >> Naming the destructor using a typedef-name for the class-name is >> well-formed. >> >> This fixes PR19620. >> >> Reviewers: rsmith, doug.gregor >> > > Did Doug participate in review for this patch? >
No, Richard Smith did. I see a pretty complete review thread for the DR244 patch in my inbox. I've even checked and none of the emails were lost in the recent email list snafu. > > Looking through SVN history, I'm seeing an alarming number of confusing > review trails. > Can you point them out specifically? I too keep a pretty close eye on these kinds of things and I'm not seeing any examples. > > If review happened off-list that's fine, but it needs to be stated clearly > because the system works on trust. > I don't think off-list review is fine... It happens some times, for good or bad reasons, and its not the end of the world. But it is definitely not SOP, and I haven't seen any evidence of it becoming more pervasive. If you see it, call it out. When patches merit pre-commit review, they should get it from the whole community. > > (In fact, I'm seeing relatively inactive developer names showing up > suspiciously in these "Reviewers" lines while some of the most active > reviewers barely appear at all. Could this be a problem with Phabricator or > some internal system you guys are using?) I'm really not sure what you're worried about here. Again, specific examples?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
