+1 from me
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev <
llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 31 May 2016 at 12:31, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
> wrote:
> > What do people think? Any issue not covered that we should?
>
> I'm in favour of the move. Git-svn just about works most of t
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola
wrote:
> I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.
>
> Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
> conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
> channels not related to llvm at all.
>
> errr, it says
That's just a residual clause.
It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you
stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked
out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules t
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jim Rowan wrote:
> I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” —
>
Sorry, it's a reference to what is usually the last clause in some set of
proscribed or allowed behavior in a law, because they are usually vague.
IE
You will get in trouble if you
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that. Looking to avoid being trolled. ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear eno
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of
> offenses.
>
Sorry, it's because i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)
> What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a
> clear
>From my perspective:
Do whatever makes y'all happy here :)
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Renato Golin
wrote:
> On 4 July 2016 at 00:42, Robinson, Paul wrote:
> > Daniel claimed it was not different, even though he proposed the text.
> > I think it is better, as "egregious" (even though it i
