[PATCH] D41665: [Docs] Add Contributing page.

[Florian Hahn via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

fhahn added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41665#965809, @asb wrote:

> This is a great initiative Florian - many thanks for kicking this off.
>
> I wonder if it would be helpful to try to change include changes to docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst and docs/Phabricator.rst in this patch. I can see the argument for trying to keep it self-contained, but you could also see this patch as being a partial "refactoring" of the current guidance for contributors, which is split across multiple files. e.g. here <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch> and guidance on picking reviewers here <http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#requesting-a-review-via-the-web-interface>.


I am all in favor of partially refactoring the docs on that topic. But I am afraid I am not sure I understand entirely what you suggest here. Do you mean moving important info from the developer policy to `docs/Contributing.rst`? Or the other way around?

IMO, I think there is value in a self contained contributing document. For example, I think Rust's Contributing info is quite good: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
Although putting too much in a single document would be counterproductive as well.

> I think the way the document is currently structured works and has some advantages, but it might be worth considering an alternative. The way I see it, there are two likely readers of this documentation:
> 
> 1. People new to LLVM who are interested in getting involved in both compiler development and upstream LLVM
> 2. People with some experience hacking LLVM or other compilers but are looking for information on how to work with the upstream LLVM community (or do you disagree, and think this case is adequately covered by DeveloperPolicy and the Phabricator code review docs?)
> 
>   With that in mind, perhaps it makes sense to split the document in to one section covering how to find something to work on and a second section which details the practicalities of preparing your changes for submission? I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but figured I'd share the thought.

Thanks Alex. Yes I think it makes sense to split that up!


https://reviews.llvm.org/D41665