[PATCH] D56819: Document toolchain update policy

Fri Jan 18 10:19:34 PST 2019

jfb marked 3 inline comments as done.
jfb added inline comments.

================
Comment at: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:660
+      versions, etc).
+    - Detail downsides on important platforms (e.g. Ubuntu LTS status).
+
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> jfb wrote:
> > lebedev.ri wrote:
> > > Passing-by remark: it may be a good idea to consider debian stable too.
> > I don't want a list here because over time what matters will likely change. "e.g." is just an example. I expect us to be smart about this and not need everything spelled out in details.
> > 
> > In the follow-up RFC I'll send next week, I plan to use the same table of *nix distros that I had in my BoF: RHEL, Debian, OpenBSD, Ubuntu (as well as GCC, LLVM, and MSVC mentions). I'd expect future RFCs to use a similar list, adding / removing as appropriate.
> No change in this patch, but I'd suggest that the first successful example of this happening be linked here.  It would be wonderful if said RFC had a fairly easy to update "Form" that'll make future updates more clear to review.
That's a great idea. That makes me think that the RFC should conclude with a summary of what was decided, which can be the template for the next time around (and we'd link to it from this doc).

Repository:
  rL LLVM

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56819