[PATCH] D89995: Make the post-commit review expectations more explicit with respect to revert

[Siva Chandra via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sivachandra added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeReview.rst:49-51
+author, unless they are unresponsive). Developers often disagree, and erring on
+the side of the developer asking for more review prevents any lingering
+disagreement over code in the tree. This does not indicate any fault from the
----------------
The wording seems to imply that this would apply even for opinion driven disagreements. I would prefer a wording which implies something more concrete. Also, in a way, it seems like the post-commit review practice is in conflict with the wording here. As in, if concerns are raised post-commit, then the post-commit review practice requires the original author to address those concerns even post-commit. I would think a revert will only happen if the original author is not acting on/addressing the concerns. Even in such cases, the revert should be justified. An example justifiable reason can be that //progress// cannot be made with out a revert.

There are of course other obvious reasons to revert, but I am assuming that this discussion is not about those reasons.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D89995/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D89995