[PATCH] D71916: High-Level Code-Review Documentation Update

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeReview.rst:230
+  smaller your patch is, the higher the probability that somebody will take a quick
+  look at it. When doing this, it is helpful to add "[N/M]" (for 1 < N < M) to
+  the title of each patch in the series, so it is clear that there is an order
----------------
hfinkel wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > Is this meant to imply that the first and the final patches in a series should use a different convention?
> No. Thanks for catching that.
Maybe:
what the order is -> what that order is


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Lexicon.rst:234
 .. _roots:
 .. _stack roots:
 
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> I am not very familiar with the format of the file, but it seems the new entry occurs between an entry for "Root" and some way of associating reference labels to that entry.
Yes, those look like link anchors to me, and probably belong with the `**Root**` block below.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Lexicon.rst:237
+**RFC**
+  Request for Comments. An email sent to a project mailing list in order to solicit
+  feedback on a proposed change.
----------------
Not sure if we have code-style guidelines for docs, but the 80 character limit looks like it is being applied here still, so this needs reflowing.

FWIW, I spell it out as "Request for Comment" in my mind! Don't think it matters though.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D71916/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D71916