[llvm-dev] [RFC] 'Review corner' section in LLVM Weekly

[Andrey Bokhanko via llvm-dev]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for trying to solve a very real problem.

I'm not sure this method will work -- but we'll never know without trying.
Either way, your willingness to act and do something is very much
appreciated by me personally.

Yours,
Andrey
---
Compiler Architect
NXP

On Sunday, August 27, 2017, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with
> LLVM's
> code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-
> reviews>
> as well as LLVM Weekly, the development newsletter I've written and sent
> out
> every Monday since Jan 2014. Since that time, it's provided something of a
> "signal boost" for important mailing list discussions and commits. I feel
> it
> could play a similar role in helping patches that are stuck waiting for
> code
> reviews, or drawing attention to submissions from first time contributors.
> There may be alternative or complementary approaches to tackling this
> perceived problem we should discuss - I'm coming from a position of trying
> to
> apply the tools I have at my disposal. Also see my previous thoughts on
> this
> issue <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/106696.html
> >.
>
> I don't think it's controversial to suggest that while the code review
> process
> works fantastically well a lot of the time, some patches fall through the
> cracks and long delays in review feedback can put people off contributing
> to
> LLVM. As was pointed out in response to the last RFC, very long review
> times
> are problems for long-time contributors as well as newcomers.
>
> My proposal is simple: add a new 'Review corner' section to LLVM Weekly to
> help highlight patches that need more reviewer input. There are two main
> categories I'd like to focus on:
> 1) patches from first-time contributors
> 2) patches where review activity has died off (i.e. they're 'stuck').
>
> Obviously this is something that I can just go ahead and do, but I'd
> appreciate feedback on whether this would be useful, as well as the
> specifics
> of my proposed approach. I'd argue such a listing does provide value above
> and
> beyond the firehose of {llvm,cfe}-commits, as the two mentioned categories
> are
> not easily discoverable.
>
> How to select the patches to include? I'm going to rule out manual
> curation -
> LLVM Weekly is already a large time commitment and I'm not convinced
> trawling
> llvm-commits is the way to about this even if time weren't a problem.
> Instead
> I suggest that authors of patches that have got stuck in the review process
> should submit their work for inclusion via a simple web form. If reviews
> have
> stalled for a given period of time (1/2 weeks?), just submit a link to the
> patch, and up to two sentences describing what the patch does and why
> people
> might want to take a look at it. This might also be used to highlight
> patches
> that aren't short of reviews but could benefit from a wider audience
> (obviously if changes are large enough, an RFC should be submitted to
> llvm-dev/cfe-dev as usual). The Phabricator API could be used to identify
> patches from first time contributors for automatic inclusion, and ideally
> to
> track the stats related to previously included patches (perhaps generate
> and
> include credits for those who stepped up and helped review the previous
> week's
> list?).
>
> So, what do people think, is this worth a go? I recognise this proposal
> makes
> a fairly large assumption, that lack of visibility is the problem to be
> solved. If the underlying problem is that not enough people have the time
> or
> willingness to review code, no amount of signal boosting is going to
> improve
> things.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <javascript:;>
> 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/20170828/fe61dcdf/attachment.html>