On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:22 AM Renato Golin via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 23:10, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +1 > > > > Maybe even stronger than "is allowed to commit", I think we should > > really think about it as the release manager owning the branch, and > > has full authority over what goes into it or not. Consulting code > > owners often makes sense of course, but for many patches, consulting > > the code owner (when there is one) is an unnecessary slowdown. > > Agree, with one condition: this is a "best effort" to speed up the > process, not to create a tug-of-war between release managers and code > owners. > > All rules still apply: developers can ask for post-commit reversal if > a problem is found, which can delay the release further and create > merge problems if it flip-flops for too long.
I think the proposed release processes make sense to me, and agree with Renato's points. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
