<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/08/2016 09:30 PM, Xinliang David
Li via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAkRFZJ+UDbCMV=0HPe94GbysQmQdgGJaHmSJe38qOcCcHHsew@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Slightly OT, but I wanted to raise a related point for clarity.
I've noticed a general trend to interpret RFCs without response as
approval to move forward. This is not what it means; more often its
that either a) the RFC is so off base no one has the time to explain
why or b) no one is interested enough in the feature to respond.
It's the responsibility of the RFC author to get explicit
agreement. This can be annoying and frustrating, but it is
necessary. Most of the late design blockages I've seen over the
last couple of months fall into this category. <br>
<br>
Philip<br>
</body>
</html>