<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Mehdi Amini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mehdi.amini@apple.com" target="_blank">mehdi.amini@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mar 8, 2016, at 9:30 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Sean Silva <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chisophugis@gmail.com" target="_blank">chisophugis@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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><br></div><div>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">http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews</a> ?<br><div><br><div>#. Sometimes patches get committed that need more discussion.</div><div> If a developer thinks that a patch would benefit from some more review</div><div> and promptly communicates this, the patch should be reverted (preferably</div><div> by the original author, unless they are unresponsive).</div><div> Developers often disagree, and erring on the side of the developer</div><div> asking for more review prevents any lingering disagreement over code in</div><div> the tree.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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></div></span><div>One data point: "FP Environment and Rounding mode handling" (see <a href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094869.html" target="_blank">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></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is a very good example of well thought/concrete concerns that can trigger great discussions. Holding off the feature for discussion in this scenario is well justified and the absolute the right thing to do.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div></div><div><br></div><div>FWIW I like Sean proposal, and I agree with David about the "priority increase" glitch.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class=""><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>"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><br></div><div>"unresponsive" add some nebulousness, but I think it's an important exception to call out for the "preferably by the original author".<span><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-- Sean Silva</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></span>
_______________________________________________<br>LLVM Developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>