<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Thanks, everyone! I'll work on a patch soon incorporating the feedback on this thread.</p>
<p> -Hal<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/16/19 7:56 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CANF-O=ZGQTR_e8CqXyYSeO+sWPGnRL6i6GQzOBT-T2Hm5eMrvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">+1 in general, and Philip has good suggestions as well!<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>Mehdi</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 8:37 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
+ 1 in general, a couple of suggestions<br>
<br>
On 11/14/19 7:46 PM, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
> 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 code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to 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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
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>
Authors are encouraged to interpret questions as reasons to reexamine<br>
the readability of the code in question. Structural changes, or further<br>
comments may be appropriate.<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>
If the path forward is not clear - because the patch is too large to<br>
meaningful review, or direction needs to be settled - it is fine to<br>
suggest a clear next step (e.g. landing a refactoring) followed by a<br>
re-review. Please state explicitly if the path forward is unclear to<br>
prevent confusions on the part of the author. <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>
A couple of additional things:<br>
<br>
Only a single LGTM is required. Reviewers are expected to only LGTM<br>
patches they're confident in their knowledge of. Reviewers may review<br>
and provide suggestions, but explicitly defer LGTM to someone else. <br>
This is encouraged and a good way for new contributors to learn the code. <br>
<br>
There is a cultural expectation that at least one reviewer is from a<br>
different organization than the author of the patch. If that's not<br>
possible, care should be taken to ensure overall direction has been<br>
widely accepted. <br>
<br>
Post commit review is encouraged via either phabricator or email. There<br>
is a strong expectation that authors respond promptly to post commit<br>
feedback and address it. Failure to do so is cause for the patch to be<br>
reverted. If substantial problems are identified, it is expected that<br>
the patch is reverted, fixed offline, and then recommitted (possibly<br>
after further review.)<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory</pre>
</body>
</html>