martong added a comment. In D57590#1411055 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57590#1411055>, @efriedma wrote:
> I don't know anything about this particular patch, but you aren't allowed to > set deadlines like that; the patch review process requires that the patch is > actually reviewed. If you aren't getting a response, ask on cfe-dev. Okay sorry about that, I will not commit until we get an approve. I think I was mislead by the "LLVM Developer Policy" (https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html) > Do not assume silent approval, or request active objections to the patch with > a deadline. I interpreted this as after several pings setting a deadline is okay, especially if the patch is small and getting old. Perhaps the policy should be updated to avoid such misinterpretation in the future. Unfortunately this part of Clang (ASTImporter) has quite a few active developers other than my colleges. Obviously my colleges could review these patches (and they have done that in our fork) but we thought it would be better to have accept from devs of other organizations. One of the clients of ASTImporter is cross translation unit (CTU) static analysis, the other is LLDB. We hope to have more users and developers of CTU by reaching a point where it is mature enough to attract more developers. At the moment CTU analysis is not successful even on a simple C project like tmux with the upstream master. But that is successful on complex C++ projects like protobuf since a long time in our fork. Upstreaming to master takes painfully too much time. Our fork is already ahead at least 25 commits and it is growing. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57590/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57590 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
