[PATCH] Include a clearer policy about what's ok/nok to speed up code reviews.

[David Blaikie]

Might be worth calling out the 'common courtesy' ping rate for
non-specially-urgent patches which is generally accepted at 1 week.
On Aug 22, 2013 6:04 AM, "Manuel Klimek" <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> As this seems to be one of the recurring themes (albeit luckily
> enough not too often), trying to put up a helpful policy.
>
> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1472
>
> Files:
>   docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
>
> Index: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
> ===================================================================
> --- docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
> +++ docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
> @@ -128,7 +128,23 @@
>     all necessary review-related changes.
>
>  #. Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the
> patch is
> -   ready to be committed.
> +   ready to be committed. Specifically, once a patch is sent out for
> review, it
> +   needs an explicit "looks good" before it is submitted. Do not assume
> silent
> +   approval, or request active objections to the patch with a deadline.
> +
> +Sometimes code reviews will take longer than you would hope for,
> especially for
> +larger features. Accepted ways to speed up review times for your patches
> are:
> +
> +* review other people's patches; if you help out, everybody will be more
> +  willing to do the same for you; goodwill is our currency
> +* ping the patch; if necessary, every couple of days; if it is urgent,
> +  provide reasons why it is important to you to get this patch landed;
> +  remember you're asking for valuable time from other professional
> developers
> +* ask for help on IRC; developers on IRC will be able to either help you
> +  directly, or tell you who might be a good reviewer
> +* split your patch into multiple smaller patches that build on each
> other; the
> +  smaller your patch, the higher the probability that somebody will take
> a quick
> +  look at it
>
>  Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and
>  reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should
> return the
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130822/e4dca4e5/attachment.html>