tstellar added a comment. In D120305#3347108 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347108>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D120305#3347103 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347103>, @tstellar > wrote: > >> In D120305#3347058 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347058>, @nemanjai >> wrote: >> >>> In D120305#3346880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3346880>, @MaskRay >>> wrote: >>> >>>> While I feel sorry for leaving clang-ppc64le-rhel red for some time and am >>>> willing to fix issues if I have access to a ppc64 machine (especially >>>> compiler-rt ones that I care about), >>>> I feel uncomfortably if a group just bluntly request "please pull this >>>> patch" when apparently (a) there is a better approach (explicitly setting >>>> CLANG_DEFAULT_PIE_ON_LINUX=OFF) and (b) there is something a bot >>>> maintainer can do >>>> and (c) there is just some inherent stability problem (in this case, >>>> consider not enabling the testing when the target is still unstable) that >>>> is causing not only this issue, but various other reports (as I watch >>>> sanitizer failures quite closely and ppc64 often tends to be the outlier >>>> thing) >>> >>> Statements like this seem to be at odds with this community's culture (or >>> at least the way I understand it). >>> As long as I have been a member of this community, the guidance for patches >>> that break bots is to fix it immediately if the fix is obvious/trivial and >>> if it isn't, to pull the patch until a solution can be found. I am not >>> aware of any changes to this policy. I would also like to add that this >>> approach serves most other members of the community quite well and at least >>> I personally don't see much opposition to this. Frankly, the only person I >>> have ever received a response that amounts to "I would rather not" when >>> asking them to pull a patch that breaks bots is yourself. >> >> @nemanjai Is correct here. > > May I beg that you read my reply first and give more evidence when standing > by one party? > You as a https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/board/ member, your words weigh a > lot, but with great power comes great responsibility, so every judgement > needs to be made prudently. > >> @MaskRay I feel like we are starting to repeat the same discussion we had >> with the start-stop-gc patches, and I would like to have a better outcome >> this time. Can you please just revert the patch and then we can discuss the >> next steps. > > Everyone wants to discuss start-stop-gc can go to > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/lld-default-nostart-stop-gc-default-on-release-13-x-and-main/5369 > Please don't conflate things here. I felt bad that people used an > unguaranteed behavior as granted and accused/attacked me of changes. > I think time has proved my correctness: I don't think anyone sees new wacky > things in this area. The issue here has nothing to do with the technical merits of the patch or what the root cause of the problem is. The policy for this project is that if you commit a patch that breaks someone's configuration (especially a buildbot), then it needs to be fixed quickly or reverted. I get that this policy can be frustrating as a committer when you feel your patch is correct, and the real problem is elsewhere, but this is still the policy and it should be followed. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
