[llvm-dev] Formalize "revert for more design review" policy.

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

On 03/08/2016 09:00 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote:
> Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember 
> two cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is 
> that as a community we should honor "revert for more design review" 
> requests unconditionally.
>
> What do you guys think of adding something like this to 
> DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in 
> http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews ?
>
> #. Sometimes patches get committed that need more discussion.
>    If a developer thinks that a patch would benefit from some more review
>    and promptly communicates this, the patch should be reverted 
> (preferably
>    by the original 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.
+1 to the general proposal.  A couple of small word tweaking suggestions:
1) we should emphasize this is a "no fault" situation.  i.e. it's not 
that the author did anything wrong per se.
2) "thinks that a patch" -> "thinks that a recently committed patch" + 
drop the promptly bit
3) "should be reverted" -> "should be reverted promptly".
4) Add a sentence: "Reverting a patch ensures that design discussions 
can happen without blocking other development; it's entirely possible 
the patch will end up being reapplied essentially as is once concerns 
have been resolved."
>
> "promptly" is there mostly to avoid suggesting a "necro-revert"; once 
> the code has been in tree for long enough at some point it would be 
> more appropriate to open a bug report or start a fresh discussion.
>
> "unresponsive" add some nebulousness, but I think it's an important 
> exception to call out for the "preferably by the original author".
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160309/53d33c62/attachment.html>