[LLVM] Nominate Ehsan as a DA maintainer#200375
Conversation
This is related to llvm#200335. I would like to nominate Ehsan as a maintainer for DependenceAnalysis as I am aware he expressed interest in that. I am happy that Ryotaro became a maintainer, and if we get one more maintainer with Ehsan, that is a really good sign of a healthy loop optimisation community; I think this is a good thing, and support this.
|
I'm sorry, but I personally don't think they should be a maintainer at this time. There are a few reasons for this, but I'll refrain from going into details here (I can share my thoughts if someone asks me directly). In short, with the past interactions, I feel that they don't have the necessary experience or skills to be a maintainer right now (this is not a criticism; it's just my own subjective opinion). However, I'm aware that, for various reasons, I may be biased, so I would like to hear what others think as well. |
| Ehsan Amiri \ | ||
| ehsan.amiri@huawei.com, [amehsan](https://github.com/amehsan) (GitHub) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this is an unintentional mistake, but adding the entry here means they would also become a maintainer of Delinearization and ScalarEvolutionDivision. I disagree with Ehsan becoming a maintainer for those passes, as they have not been involved in their development.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I noticed that, will untangle that later. I mainly wanted to do the nomination.
The reason is #200335 got merged within 1 hour after, so there was no room for discussion. I don't think this was the right thing to do from a process point of view; this is completely separate from the fact that I am happy with your nomination by the way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand. I should have waited a little longer. I'm sorry.
I know exactly what you are referring to. Let me say the following after having observed many difficult discussions: I think there's room for improvement for both. And here's why I would support the nomination:
|
|
First of all, it's not that I want to run things in a dictatorial way. As a maintainer, I see my role more as keeping the code quality high and providing accurate information (including historical context) when needed.
That's part of it, but it's not the whole story. My concern comes from actually about a fairly recent, rather minor patches that you probably weren't very involved in.
The Code-Review Policy states as follows:
It seems to me that maintainers can skip explicit reviews based on their own judgment. This is exactly what concerns me. I agree with your other points (having more people, more diversity, and a healthy community is important) but personally, I don't think adding one more maintainer is the only way to achieve them. Anyway, this is just one individual's disagreement, and I don’t intend to block this solely based on my opinion. |
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/51/builds/37619 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
4 participants
This is related to #200335. I would like to nominate Ehsan as a maintainer for DependenceAnalysis as I am aware he expressed interest in that. I am happy that Ryotaro became a maintainer, and if we get one more maintainer with Ehsan, that is a really good sign of a healthy loop optimisation community; I think this is a good thing, and support this.