[PATCH] D41665: [Docs] Add Contributing page.
Alex Bradbury via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 2 07:29:59 PST 2018
asb added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41665#965824, @fhahn wrote:
> 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 meant the first. Right now we have info about contributing spread across several places. This patch consolidates that information (great!) but ends up adding a little more duplication because it doesn't replace the existing info with references to docs/Contributing.rst. It could make sense to get docs/Contributing.rst committed then consider whether other docs can be updated to reference it, or instead to try to incorporate those changes in this patch. I don't feel particularly strongly either way.
More information about the llvm-commits