tonic added a comment.
================ Comment at: lldb/CodeOwners.rst:7-8 +particular part of LLDB are reviewed, either by themself or by someone else. +They are also the gatekeepers for their part of LLDB, with the final word on +what goes in or not. + ---------------- JDevlieghere wrote: > DavidSpickett wrote: > > JDevlieghere wrote: > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > This could be taken to mean every review must have approval from a code > > > > owner, on top of whatever other review has been done. Is that the > > > > intent? Someone coming from a project with strong maintainer rules > > > > (e.g. GDB, so I gather) may take it that way. > > > I copied this from the Clang `CodeOwners.rst` with the aim of being > > > consistent, but I'm happy to tweak it. We could qualify the last > > > sentence with something like "when consensus cannot be reached" or if we > > > think "gatekeeper" is too strong of a work maybe we can use > > > "tie-breaker", though I like that the former implies a sense of duty. > > > Happy to take suggestions! > > My understanding was that llvm in general didn't have this hard requirement > > for an owner to acknowledge every review. > > > > So yeah: > > "They are also the gatekeepers for their part of LLDB, with the final word > > on what goes in or not when consensus cannot be reached." > > > > Sounds good to me. > > My understanding was that llvm in general didn't have this hard requirement > > for an owner to acknowledge every review. > > Yup, that's my understanding as well! > I would not put policy regarding code owners in this document. The policy is already in the DeveloperPolicy for the project. You could reference back to that document if you want. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156949/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156949 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
