[PATCH] D23162: [docs] Adding target status definition to dev policy

[Chris Lattner via llvm-commits]

lattner requested changes to this revision.
lattner added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.

Overall, looks great.  I added some specific detailed comments above.  Once you addressed those, I think this is good to merge, thank you for driving this forward Renato!


================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:572
@@ +571,3 @@
+
+* There must be an active community behind the target. This community
+  will be the maintainers of the target by providing buildbots, fixing
----------------
I think that the very first bullet point is that the target must have a code owner.  The active community is the second bullet.  This allows you to divide the responsibilities a bit: the code owner makes sure that changes to the target get reviewed and steers the overall effort, but the community ensures that bots and other larger issues are handled.

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:576
@@ +575,3 @@
+  target doesn't break any of the other targets, or generic code. This
+  behaviour is expected to continue throughout the lifetime of the
+  target's code.
----------------
Nit-pick: Please use American spelling: "behavior".

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:584
@@ +583,3 @@
+  following the IR backwards compatibility described in the developer's policy
+  document.
+
----------------
Link to the IR compatibility section of the policy?

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:586
@@ +585,3 @@
+
+* The code has a compatible license, patent and copyright statements,
+  or can be converted to LLVM's :ref:`own model<copyright-license-patents>`.
----------------
License compatibility is not enough, it must be the same license.  Please say something like:

"The code conforms to all of the policies laid out in this developer policy document, including license, patent, and coding standards."

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:598
@@ +597,3 @@
+* The target must have addressed every other minimum requirement and
+  have been stable in tree for at least 2-3 months. This cool down
+  period is to make sure that the back-end and the target community can
----------------
If we're going to pick an arbitrary timeframe, it might as well be specific.  Just say "3 months" instead of "2-3 months".


================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:611
@@ +610,3 @@
+  pass without errors, in at least one configuration (publicly
+  demonstrated, ex.  via buildbots).
+
----------------
please expand "ex." to "for example".  This is more comprehensible to non-english-as-first-language readers.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D23162