<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 8, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Sean Silva <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:chisophugis@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">chisophugis@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">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.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in <a href="http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews" target="_blank" class="">http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews</a> ?<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">#. Sometimes patches get committed that need more discussion.</div><div class=""> If a developer thinks that a patch would benefit from some more review</div><div class=""> and promptly communicates this, the patch should be reverted (preferably</div><div class=""> by the original author, unless they are unresponsive).</div><div class=""> Developers often disagree, and erring on the side of the developer</div><div class=""> asking for more review prevents any lingering disagreement over code in</div><div class=""> the tree.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is an interesting proposal. In practice, what I have seen is that developers usually send out RFC (design of some kinds) to llvm-dev long before the actual implementation, and the patch is submitted after RFC did not get any objections. Would the late request like this come as a surprise to the developer? </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>One data point: "FP Environment and Rounding mode handling" (see <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094869.html" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094869.html</a> ).</div><div>There was a discussion on LLVM Dev, then a bunch of patches went through code review for months, and finally Chandler chimed in very late and we totally blocked the feature on a design ground.</div><div>It can be painful, it is case-by-case tradeoff to evaluate of course, but this is also what makes LLVM robust and relatively clean IMO.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>FWIW I like Sean proposal, and I agree with David about the "priority increase" glitch.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- </div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">thanks,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"unresponsive" add some nebulousness, but I think it's an important exception to call out for the "preferably by the original author".<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- Sean Silva</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">LLVM Developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>