No objections from me.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-931793600
@areusch I definitely agree with everything you said. To clarify, I'm in favor
of this going forward given the impact it has on the quality of life of the
code shepherds, so I guess I'll officially vote +1.
I just wanted to mention these concerns in a place where we already have some
discussion
+0 as someone who is not actively reviewing a large body of code, I don't have
a strong opinion on if this is the right move. It's clear that the current "tag
all code owners" is not workable, and I fully support removing that. To me the
big questions is: how do we fairly allocate work amongst t
thanks @manupa-arm @leandron @Mousius @electriclilies for the comments!
I have a few more comments based on more detailed analysis of the relationship
between `CONTRIBUTORS.md` and `CODEOWNERS`. My original +1 was based on cursory
look at `CODEOWNERS` in which I thought only a smaller subset of
@tqchen thanks for spotting that! did the change.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-931391386
I added one last minor nits. @mbs-octoml @csullivan @areusch please take
another look and let us merge in 24 h
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-93127716
