On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Perhaps the confusion here stems from the 'signed-off-by' lines in other > code review systems? My understanding (although very, very limited) is that > those lines are reasonably enforced by the tools and thus the canonical > record of what review took place. > > The "reviewers" line is nothing more or less than the folks directly > listed in phabricator to have the patch put into their review queue. As the > mailing list remains the canonical record of what review has taken place, > sometimes the record in phabricator is accurate, sometimes it isn't. I > never fuss about this because I've never really worked with a system that > has some kind of enforcement. I don't think that strict enforcement of this > kind of thing makes a lot of sense in LLVM because of different folks using > different workflows. > > I'm not sure whether we can easily control the line going into the commit > log, but I'm also not too worried about that either in the end. I would > just skip the line entirely if we can. > I would prefer that we teach arcanist to not generate this line. It seems misleading and not useful.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
