More code owners needed

Hi,

I've been going through my queue of candidate patches for the 3.6 branch,
and I think the process could be smoother if we had more code owners.
So, I'd like to encourage people to nominate themselves or others as
code owners for any part of LLVM that doesn't already have one.

The responsibilities of a code owner include reviewing patches submitted
to llvm-commits and approving merge requests to the stable branches.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to start nominating new code owners whenever
I get a stable merge request for an unowned component. I'm going to try to
determine the best code owner based on git history. If I nominate you, there
is no obligation to accept. Feel free to decline or nominate someone else.

Thanks,
Tom

Sounds like a great idea, thanks Tom.

-Chris

Hi,

I've been going through my queue of candidate patches for the 3.6 branch,
and I think the process could be smoother if we had more code owners.
So, I'd like to encourage people to nominate themselves or others as
code owners for any part of LLVM that doesn't already have one.

The responsibilities of a code owner include reviewing patches submitted
to llvm-commits and approving merge requests to the stable branches.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to start nominating new code owners
whenever
I get a stable merge request for an unowned component. I'm going to try to
determine the best code owner based on git history. If I nominate you,
there
is no obligation to accept. Feel free to decline or nominate someone else.

SGTM - thanks for doing the legwork to push for concrete granular owners.

- David

Hi Tom,

How granular are we going here? Are we looking at owners for each pass, or not that small?

Cheers,

James

Hi Tom,

How granular are we going here? Are we looking at owners for each pass, or
not that small?

My feeling is as granular as possible, but it should probably be on a
case by case basis. There are some passes that pretty much never change
that probably don't need their own code owner, but it would be good to
have one code owner per pass for the ones that still see a lot of changes.
Or at least to have a code owner for a group of related passes, like how
Chandler is the code owner for 'inlining & related passes'

-Tom