jdoerfert added a comment. The problem I want to address is with code owners. TBH, I would like our overall description of that role to be (more) like @hfinkel described it. In case there is no controversy, that is not really different from @dblaikie vision (I think). If there is controversy, a growing community in which there might not be "the one active person" anymore, or some other "interesting" situations arises, I don't think we should not have these "special rights" without checks. This is particularly important as there is no process of changing the code owner (that I know of). If I play devils advocate, I'd say the situation described by @dblaikie prevents a growing community to change directions as the code owner has final say and the rest has to follow. I don't think hat is the intend, neither of @dblaikie nor the community.
@mehdi_amini I understand your concerns. I actually think you might be right, this sentence might not be the way to go. As mentioned above, I'd like us to have more documentation on the role of code owners in general. What does this mean, how are things changed, ... if we get those, and they address the situation I try to resolve via our review policy, I'd like that far better than this "solution". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77683/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77683 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
