echristo wrote: > @slinder1 thanks for the call-out, re-reading > https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#lgtm-how-a-patch-is-accepted I was out > of line here. My approval should've been qualified ("LGTM but please wait > for... " per the docs there) - for reviews like this I'd generally expected > "reaching concensus" was the bar and any individual approval wasn't > sufficient (& I think that's generally the norm, but it can get fuzzy) - but > that's not the documented process and explicitly qualifying an approval is > better/clearer. I'll keep that in mind in the future.
And I'll be clearer in the future that I'm waiting to address the feedback of folks who do have concerns but aren't reviewers. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/210850 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
