I agree that it can be annoying to say "hey guys, i would normally do post commit review on this, but i wanted to give the courtesy of a heads up", and then potentially waiting an indeterminate amount of time.
I think that actually discourages these kind of changes going up at all, because people will just say "well that's easy i just won't give the heads up then", which i think would be a net loss On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM Aaron Ballman <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Michael Spertus <m...@spertus.com> > wrote: > > Hi David, > > While I understand the initial reasoning. I have found that this is like > a > > hundred times better for working on Clang in practice and can't imagine > > working without it. The point is that many Clang data structures contain > > SmallVectors and having to do zero expansion clicks instead of multiple > each > > time you take a step through the code is really helpful. If you want me > to > > back it out and rereview we can, but I'd encourage you to try it out > first. > > Yeah, SmallVectors are somewhat click-heavy in MSVC currently. I've > not had the chance to try this patch out on anything practical, but it > seems like it is an improvement from what I've seen. > > > To ask more about the aside, I'm sorry if I violated community norms. > Let me > > tell you my reasoning, and you can clarify how I should handle in the > > future: Aaron approved me to do post-commit reviews on natvis changes, > which > > I have done frequently. For this change, I wasn't putting it into > > phabricator because I thought pre-commit approval is required but more > as a > > heads up. Should I change that to be if I don't feel comfortable > submitting > > without phabricator, then do the full review process? > > When you want to give the community a heads up on something, putting > it into phab (or starting an RFC thread on the mailing list) is a good > choice. However, when you start a patch in phab, it's good form to > wait for a reviewer to sign off before committing even if you could > also handle it with post-commit review. I'm not too worried about this > change, so I'm not suggesting it should be backed out. > > ~Aaron > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> As for the original change proposed: My guiding principle would be "do > >> whatever std::vector does". (& that's what I did when implementing GDB > >> pretty printers for SmallVector/SmallString/ArrayRef, etc... ) > >> > >> An aside: We generally don't do time limited reviews like this. Either > >> something needs review because you're not sure about it, or it doesn't. > It > >> sounds like the feedback you were looking for probably would've been > fine a > >> post-commit review feedback just as easily & perhaps might've been a > better > >> option. (while in this case it was fine - it's sort of a community > >> habit/standards thing - we don't want to create the idea that lack of > >> feedback is consent/approval in the review process) > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Mike Spertus via cfe-commits > >> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> mspertus closed this revision. > >>> mspertus added a comment. > >>> > >>> revision 272525 > >>> > >>> > >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21256 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> cfe-commits mailing list > >>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >> > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits