[flang-commits] [PATCH] D130166: [flang] Adding a guideline for flang design documentation

[Peter Klausler via Phabricator via flang-commits]

klausler added inline comments.


================
Comment at: flang/docs/DesignGuideline.md:30-33
+The design document should be added to the `docs` folder as a markdown document,
+ideally using the name of the feature as the document name. Its approval on
+Phabricator is the pre-requisite to submitting patches implementing new
+features.
----------------
kiranchandramohan wrote:
> awarzynski wrote:
> > jeanPerier wrote:
> > > jeanPerier wrote:
> > > > clementval wrote:
> > > > > unterumarmung wrote:
> > > > > > So, one should create a design doc first, merge it to the repository after necessary approvals and only then start to work on the feature?
> > > > > > I'm with @awarzynski on this. I think it's more agile to first create a discourse discussion with RFC and/or design doc and then, after a mutual agreement that a feature is needed, start to work on the feature and the final design doc in the same revision.
> > > > > I think discussion on Discourse are nice but I find it hard to summarize if you come later in the discussion or even after it. IMO The document is a better place to have the summary of what is agreed on. To get it it in tree phab is the only way. What about make a phab review for the document and advertise it in a Discourse post?
> > > > > So, one should create a design doc first, merge it to the repository after necessary approvals and only then start to work on the feature?
> > > > > I'm with @awarzynski on this. I think it's more agile to first create a discourse discussion with RFC and/or design doc and then, after a mutual agreement that a feature is needed, start to work on the feature and the final design doc in the same revision.
> > > > 
> > > > No, the guideline tells that you can first discuss on discourse if you want to, but I do not think we should mandate the discussions to happen on discourse if the person working on the feature prefers the discussions to happen as a design document review. Although, I agree with @awarzynski  point that discourse is more visible, and it makes sense to me to require people to at least advertise those in discourse.
> > > > So, one should create a design doc first, merge it to the repository after necessary approvals and only then start to work on the feature?
> > > > I'm with @awarzynski on this. I think it's more agile to first create a discourse discussion with RFC and/or design doc and then, after a mutual agreement that a feature is needed, start to work on the feature and the final design doc in the same revision.
> > > 
> > > 
> > I suggest that:
> > # We require all new proposal/design-docs to be //advertised// on Discourse.
> > # People posting new proposals decide for themselves whether they prefer the discussion to continue on Discourse or Phabricator.
> > 
> > Basically, we let people decide what works for them best. 
> For me, advertising in discourse should be made compulsory so that people are aware. 
There are conference calls, mailing lists, discourse, slack, and phabricator.  Only phabricator is mandatory.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D130166/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D130166