erichkeane wrote: > I am not planning on any further landings. > > I created the PR in draft status if you will notice, with the intention that > it will eventually contain the fixes to their repros, and then the PR would > have moved to ready for review. >
Yep, I both saw that and understood that. I marked it as 'needs revision' so that we don't merge this before the branch. Thanks in part to what you said below, I think this is too high risk by now to try to get in before the branch date. > I don't think we want to set any rules about number of attempts, or even talk > about number of attempts to land as a relevant metric of anything. Agreed, but if there WAS a number, its probably less than 6 :) > As far as I know, all repros could have been reproduced on the first landing, > and this could have gone a lot smoother if people didn't revert so fast, or > if they did, if they actually provided repros the first time around. That is the unfortunate nature of the project, folks work on a volunteer basis, so they understandably stop investigating once a revert happens. Typically this isn't really problematic as there are rarely this many issues with a patch as this one was. Also, to slightly disagree, there was at least 1 of the cycles where the 'fixup' is what caused the issue. > This has been cooking for a long time, and it will soon be ready for 23. I'm going to insist we aim for 24. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/208601 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
