<li><a href="#informed">Stay Informed</a></li>
<li><a href="#patches">Making a Patch</a></li>
<li><a href="#reviews">Code Reviews</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#owners">Code Owners</a></li>
<li><a href="#testcases">Test Cases</a></li>
<li><a href="#quality">Quality</a></li>
<li><a href="#commitaccess">Obtaining Commit Access</a></li>
<ol>
<li>Attract both users and developers to the LLVM project.</li>
<li>Make life as simple and easy for contributors as possible.</li>
- <li>Keep the top of tree CVS/SVN trees as stable as possible.</li>
+ <li>Keep the top of Subversion trees as stable as possible.</li>
</ol>
<p>This policy is aimed at frequent contributors to LLVM. People interested in
<p>When making a patch for review, the goal is to make it as easy for the
reviewer to read it as possible. As such, we recommend that you:</p>
<ol>
- <li>Make your patch against the CVS HEAD (main development trunk),
- not a branch, and not an old version of LLVM. This makes it easy to
- apply the patch.</li>
+ <li>Make your patch against the Subversion trunk, not a branch, and not an
+ old version of LLVM. This makes it easy to apply the patch.</li>
<li>Similarly, patches should be submitted soon after they are generated.
Old patches may not apply correctly if the underlying code changes between
the time the patch was created and the time it is applied.</li>
<li>Patches should be made with this command:
- <pre>cvs diff -Ntdup -5</pre>
+ <pre>svn diff -x -u</pre>
or with the utility <tt>utils/mkpatch</tt>, which makes it easy to read the
diff.</li>
<p>Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and
reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should
return the favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review
- and give feedback on a patch, but only people with CVS write access can
- approve it.</p>
+ and give feedback on a patch, but only people with Subversion write access
+ can approve it.</p>
</div>
+<!-- _______________________________________________________________________ -->
+<div class="doc_subsection"> <a name="owners">Code Owners</a></div>
+<div class="doc_text">
+
+ <p>The LLVM Project relies on two features of its process to maintain rapid
+ development in addition to the high quality of its source base: the
+ combination of code review plus post-commit review for trusted maintainers.
+ Having both is a great way for the project to take advantage of the fact
+ that most people do the right thing most of the time, and only commit
+ patches without pre-commit review when they are confident they are
+ right.</p>
+
+ <p>The trick to this is that the project has to guarantee that all patches
+ that are committed are reviewed after they go in: you don't want everyone
+ to assume someone else will review it, allowing the patch to go unreviewed.
+ To solve this problem, we have a notion of an 'owner' for a piece of the
+ code. The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit
+ to their area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or
+ by someone else. The current code owners are:</p>
+
+ <ol>
+ <li><b>Anton Korobeynikov</b>: Exception handling, debug information, and
+ Windows codegen.</li>
+ <li><b>Duncan Sands</b>: llvm-gcc 4.2.</li>
+ <li><b>Evan Cheng</b>: Code generator and all targets.</li>
+ <li><b>Chris Lattner</b>: Everything else.</li>
+ </ol>
+
+ <p>Note that code ownership is completely different than reviewers: anyone can
+ review a piece of code, and we welcome code review from anyone who is
+ interested. Code owners are the "last line of defense" to guarantee that
+ all patches that are committed are actually reviewed.</p>
+
+ <p>Being a code owner is a somewhat unglamorous position, but it is incredibly
+ important for the ongoing success of the project. Because people get busy,
+ interests change, and unexpected things happen, code ownership is purely
+ opt-in, and anyone can choose to resign their "title" at any time. For now,
+ we do not have an official policy on how one gets elected to be a code
+ owner.
+ </p>
+
+</div>
+
+
<!-- _______________________________________________________________________ -->
<div class="doc_subsection"> <a name="testcases">Test Cases</a></div>
<div class="doc_text">
bug being fixed or feature being implemented is in the llvm-gcc C++
front-end, in which case it must be written in C++).</li>
<li>Test cases, especially for regressions, should be reduced as much as
- possible, by <a href="CommandGuide/html/bugpoint.html">bugpoint</a> or
+ possible, by <a href="Bugpoint.html">bugpoint</a> or
manually. It is unacceptable
to place an entire failing program into <tt>llvm/test</tt> as this creates
a <i>time-to-test</i> burden on all developers. Please keep them short.</li>
<p>
We grant commit access to contributors with a track record of submitting high
-quality patches. If you would like commit access, please send an email to the
-<a href="mailto:llvm-oversight@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVM oversight group</a>.</p>
+quality patches. If you would like commit access, please send an email to
+<a href="mailto:sabre@nondot.org">Chris</a> with the following information:</p>
+
+<ol>
+ <li>The user name you want to commit with, e.g. "sabre".</li>
+ <li>The full name and email address you want message to llvm-commits to come
+ from, e.g. "Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org>".</li>
+ <li>A "password hash" of the password you want to use, e.g. "2ACR96qjUqsyM".
+ Note that you don't ever tell us what your password is, you just give it
+ to us in an encrypted form. To get this, run "htpasswd" (a utility that
+ comes with apache) in crypt mode (often enabled with "-d"), or find a web
+ page that will do it for you.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<p>Once you've been granted commit access, you should be able to check out an
+ LLVM tree with an SVN URL of "https://username@llvm.org/..." instead of the
+ normal anonymous URL of "http://llvm.org/...". The first time you commit
+ you'll have to type in your password. Note that you may get a warning from
+ SVN about an untrusted key, you can ignore this. To verify that your commit
+ access works, please do a test commit (e.g. change a comment or add a blank
+ line). Your first commit to a repository may require the autogenerated email
+ to be approved by a mailing list. This is normal, and will be done when
+ the mailing list owner has time.</p>
<p>If you have recently been granted commit access, these policies apply:</p>
+
<ol>
<li>You are granted <i>commit-after-approval</i> to all parts of LLVM.
To get approval, submit a <a href="#patches">patch</a> to
<p>In any case, your changes are still subject to <a href="#reviews">code
review</a> (either before or after they are committed, depending on the nature
of the change). You are encouraged to review other peoples' patches as well,
-but your aren't required to.</p>
+but you aren't required to.</p>
</div>
<div class="doc_text">
<p>We believe in correct attribution of contributions to
their contributors. However, we do not want the source code to be littered
- with random attributions (this is noisy/distracting and revision control
- keeps a perfect history of this anyway). As such, we follow these rules:</p>
- <ol>
- <li>Developers who originate new files in LLVM should place their name at
- the top of the file per the
- <a href="CodingStandards.html#scf_commenting">Coding Standards</a>.</li>
- <li>There should be only one name at the top of the file and it should be
- the person who created the file.</li>
- <li>Placing your name in the file does not imply <a
- href="#clp">copyright</a>: it is only used to attribute the file to
- its original author.</li>
- <li>Developers should be aware that after some time has passed, the name at
- the top of a file may become meaningless as maintenance/ownership of files
- changes. Despite this, once set, the attribution of a file never changes.
- Revision control keeps an accurate history of contributions.</li>
- <li>Developers should maintain their entry in the
- <a href="http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/CREDITS.TXT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup">CREDITS.txt</a>
- file to summarize their contributions.</li>
- <li>Commit comments should contain correct attribution of the person who
- submitted the patch if that person is not the committer (i.e. when a
- developer with commit privileges commits a patch for someone else).</li>
- </ol>
+ with random attributions "this code written by J Random Guy" (this is noisy
+ and distracting. In practice, the revision control system keeps a perfect
+ history of who change what, and the CREDITS.txt file describes higher-level
+ contributions.</p>
+
+ <p>Overall, please do not add contributor names to the source base.</p>
</div>
read the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php">License</a>
if further clarification is needed.</p>
- <p>Note that the LLVM Project does distribute some code that includes GPL
- software (notably, llvm-gcc which is based on the GCC GPL source base).
+ <p>Note that the LLVM Project does distribute llvm-gcc, <b>which is GPL.</b>
This means that anything "linked" into llvm-gcc must itself be compatible
with the GPL, and must be releasable under the terms of the GPL. This implies
- that <b>any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may be
- subject to
- the viral aspects of the GPL</b>. This is not a problem for the main LLVM
- distribution (which is already licensed under a more liberal license), but may
- be a problem if you intend to base commercial development on llvm-gcc without
+ that <b>any code linked into llvm-gcc and distributed to others may be subject
+ to the viral aspects of the GPL</b> (for example, a proprietary code generator
+ linked into llvm-gcc must be made available under the GPL). This is not a
+ problem for code already distributed under a more liberal license (like the
+ UIUC license), and does not affect code generated by llvm-gcc. It may be a
+ problem if you intend to base commercial development on llvm-gcc without
redistributing your source code.</p>
<p>We have no plans to change the license of LLVM. If you have questions
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff