Skip to content

[NFC][LLVM] Add RealtimeSanitizer LLVM code owners #101231

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2024

Conversation

cjappl
Copy link
Contributor

@cjappl cjappl commented Jul 30, 2024

Split from #100596

@cjappl
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjappl commented Jul 30, 2024

CC Reviewers @vitalybuka @MaskRay @davidtrevelyan

Because we don't have commiter access, not sure if this should just be closed! I defer to the reviewers if adding this in is appropriate or not.

Thanks as always.

@@ -263,3 +263,7 @@ D: C-SKY backend (lib/Target/CSKY/*)
N: Ilia Diachkov
E: [email protected]
D: SPIR-V backend (lib/Target/SPIRV/*)

N: Christopher Apple, David Trevelyan
E: [email protected], [email protected]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's better to use an email address for contribution instead of realtime.sanitizer, which might forward to you, but are not associated with any commits.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in the latest version!

@vitalybuka
Copy link
Collaborator

CC Reviewers @vitalybuka @MaskRay @davidtrevelyan

Because we don't have commiter access, not sure if this should just be closed! I defer to the reviewers if adding this in is appropriate or not.
[>
Thanks as always.

I don't know if this process is still relevant https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access

@cjappl
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjappl commented Jul 31, 2024

CC Reviewers @vitalybuka @MaskRay @davidtrevelyan
Because we don't have commiter access, not sure if this should just be closed! I defer to the reviewers if adding this in is appropriate or not.
[>
Thanks as always.

I don't know if this process is still relevant https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access

Thanks for that link @vitalybuka! Do you think it's appropriate at this stage to apply for commit access? I have a couple commits, and only one large one (the compiler-rt work for rtsan). With a few additional big changes needed for the first version of rtsan.

I defer to your expertise, seeing as you're the one I've interacted the most with on PRs. I do not want to apply "too early" if it is inappropriate.

Thank you for any advice.

@vitalybuka
Copy link
Collaborator

CC Reviewers @vitalybuka @MaskRay @davidtrevelyan
Because we don't have commiter access, not sure if this should just be closed! I defer to the reviewers if adding this in is appropriate or not.
[>
Thanks as always.

I don't know if this process is still relevant https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access

Thanks for that link @vitalybuka! Do you think it's appropriate at this stage to apply for commit access? I have a couple commits, and only one large one (the compiler-rt work for rtsan). With a few additional big changes needed for the first version of rtsan.

I defer to your expertise, seeing as you're the one I've interacted the most with on PRs. I do not want to apply "too early" if it is inappropriate.

Thank you for any advice.

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-new-criteria-for-commit-access/76290/81
Looks like LLVM it trying to limit the number of commiters https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-new-criteria-for-commit-access/76290
And LLVM will likely soon going to have better commiter access requesting process.

We can try proceed as-is, without commiter, and you can apply when you think access is beneficial to you.
I assume wrong review assignees will figure out how to contact you if needed.
I suspect some OWNERS already lost commiter access.

@vitalybuka vitalybuka merged commit bf5e56d into llvm:main Jul 31, 2024
7 checks passed
@cjappl
Copy link
Contributor Author

cjappl commented Jul 31, 2024

CC Reviewers @vitalybuka @MaskRay @davidtrevelyan
Because we don't have commiter access, not sure if this should just be closed! I defer to the reviewers if adding this in is appropriate or not.
[>
Thanks as always.

I don't know if this process is still relevant https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access

Thanks for that link @vitalybuka! Do you think it's appropriate at this stage to apply for commit access? I have a couple commits, and only one large one (the compiler-rt work for rtsan). With a few additional big changes needed for the first version of rtsan.
I defer to your expertise, seeing as you're the one I've interacted the most with on PRs. I do not want to apply "too early" if it is inappropriate.
Thank you for any advice.

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-new-criteria-for-commit-access/76290/81 Looks like LLVM it trying to limit the number of commiters https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-new-criteria-for-commit-access/76290 And LLVM will likely soon going to have better commiter access requesting process.

We can try proceed as-is, without commiter, and you can apply when you think access is beneficial to you. I assume wrong review assignees will figure out how to contact you if needed. I suspect some OWNERS already lost commiter access.

Sounds good. I think perhaps once the main pieces of rtsan have landed and are stable, that would be a good time to apply.

@cjappl cjappl deleted the rtsan_llvm_codeowners branch July 31, 2024 20:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants