<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Do it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--paulr<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>James Henderson via llvm-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 15, 2019 5:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel@anl.gov><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] High-Level Code-Review Documentation Update<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This all sounds good to me, and reflects certainly how I review and am reviewed. I don't think I have any additional suggestions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 03:46, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi, everyone,<br>
<br>
I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our <br>
code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our <br>
community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on <br>
code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to <br>
new developers.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews" target="_blank">
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews</a><br>
<br>
I would like to compose a patch to update this, but before I do that, I <br>
want to highlight some of my thoughts to get feedback. My intent is to <br>
capture our community best practices in writing so that people new to <br>
our community understand our processes and expectations. Here are some <br>
things that I would like to capture:<br>
<br>
1. You do not need to be an expert in some area of the compiler to <br>
review patches; it's fine to ask questions about what some piece of code <br>
is doing. If it's not clear to you what is going on, you're unlikely to <br>
be the only one. Extra comments and/or test cases can often help (and <br>
asking for comments in the test cases is fine as well).<br>
<br>
2. If you review a patch, but don't intend for the review process to <br>
block on your approval, please state that explicitly. Out of courtesy, <br>
we generally wait on committing a patch until all reviewers are <br>
satisfied, and if you don't intend to look at the patch again in a <br>
timely fashion, please communicate that fact in the review.<br>
<br>
3. All comments by reviewers should be addressed by the patch author. <br>
It is generally expected that suggested changes will be incorporated <br>
into the next revision of the patch unless the author and/or other <br>
reviewers can articulate a good reason to do otherwise (and then the <br>
reviewers must agree). If you suggest changes in a code review, but <br>
don't wish the suggestion to be interpreted this strongly, please state <br>
so explicitly.<br>
<br>
4. Reviewers may request certain aspects of a patch to be broken out <br>
into separate patches for independent review, and also, reviewers may <br>
accept a patch conditioned on the author providing a follow-up patch <br>
addressing some particular issue or concern (although no committed patch <br>
should leave the project in a broken state). Reviewers can also accept a <br>
patch conditioned on the author applying some set of minor updates prior <br>
to committing, and when applicable, it is polite for reviewers to do so.<br>
<br>
5. Aim to limit the number of iterations in the review process. For <br>
example, when suggesting a change, if you want the author to make a <br>
similar set of changes at other places in the code, please explain the <br>
requested set of changes so that the author can make all of the changes <br>
at once. If a patch will require multiple steps prior to approval (e.g., <br>
splitting, refactoring, posting data from specific performance tests), <br>
please explain as many of these up front as possible. This allows the <br>
patch author to make the most-efficient use of his or her time.<br>
<br>
6. Some changes are too large for just a code review. Changes that <br>
should change the Language Reference (e.g., adding new <br>
target-independent intrinsics), adding language extensions in Clang, and <br>
so on, require an RFC on *-dev first. For changes that promise <br>
significant impact on users and/or downstream code bases, reviewers can <br>
request an RFC (Request for Comment) achieving consensus before <br>
proceeding with code review. That having been said, posting initial <br>
patches can help with discussions on an RFC.<br>
<br>
Lastly, the current text reads, "Code reviews are conducted by email on <br>
the relevant project’s commit mailing list, or alternatively on the <br>
project’s development list or bug tracker.", and then only later <br>
mentions Phabricator. I'd like to move Phabricator to be mentioned on <br>
this line before the other methods.<br>
<br>
Please let me know what you think.<br>
<br>
Thanks again,<br>
<br>
Hal<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Hal Finkel<br>
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages<br>
Leadership Computing Facility<br>
Argonne National Laboratory<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>