[PATCH] D56819: Document toolchain update policy

Fri Jan 18 02:17:17 PST 2019

hans marked an inline comment as done.
hans added inline comments.

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:670
+
+  * Ensure that at least one LLVM release has had this soft-error. Not all
+    developers compile LLVM tip-of-tree. These release-bound developers should
----------------
jfb wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > I believe we should be clear as to whether this means one release cycle where the soft-error has been present since the last release branched, or if we mean that the soft-error made it into one release branch (no matter how late the soft-error was added).
> > 
> > For example: If the soft-error is added late in the development cycle of a release (say, to 10.0 in December), does the proposed process imply that top-of-tree can have the hard-error by next January with a soft-error only added over the holiday season?
> That's really up to the release manager, I don't think we need to nail down every single eventuality. In particular, to really figure out the right thing to do we'd need to know when people compile clang branches: do they do so early or late, or only when the branch is deemed "done"? If say a Linux distro only takes the branch once "done", then your point is totally moot. And say they get bit by something, and decide to start compiling them earlier, then whatever policy is now based on outdated facts.
> 
> There's so many eventualities that I really don't think we need to decide on a policy. The release manager is smart, let's trust them. @Hans WDYT?
I think the text as proposed here is fine.

Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D56819/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56819