[PATCH] D63488: [docs] Phabricator, not the lists is the main entry point for new patches

[Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

lebedev.ri created this revision.
lebedev.ri added reviewers: lattner, chandlerc.
lebedev.ri added a project: LLVM.

I've seen people trip over the current friendly-but-not-true wording more than once.
I'm reasonably sure that all the new patches generally go to phabricator, not lists.
How about we reword it to be more specific, and prevent misdirections?


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63488

Files:
  docs/Contributing.rst
  docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
  docs/Phabricator.rst


Index: docs/Phabricator.rst
===================================================================
--- docs/Phabricator.rst
+++ docs/Phabricator.rst
@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@
 .. contents::
   :local:
 
-If you prefer to use a web user interface for code reviews, you can now submit
-your patches for Clang and LLVM at `LLVM's Phabricator`_ instance.
+You can submit your patches for Clang and LLVM at `LLVM's Phabricator`_
+instance.
 
 While Phabricator is a useful tool for some, the relevant -commits mailing list
 is the system of record for all LLVM code review. The mailing list should be
Index: docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
===================================================================
--- docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
+++ docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
@@ -93,24 +93,12 @@
    different tool, make sure it uses the ``diff -u`` format and that it
    doesn't contain clutter which makes it hard to read.
 
-Once your patch is ready, submit it by emailing it to the appropriate project's
-commit mailing list (or commit it directly if applicable). Alternatively, some
-patches get sent to the project's development list or component of the LLVM bug
-tracker, but the commit list is the primary place for reviews and should
-generally be preferred.
-
-When sending a patch to a mailing list, it is a good idea to send it as an
-*attachment* to the message, not embedded into the text of the message.  This
-ensures that your mailer will not mangle the patch when it sends it (e.g. by
-making whitespace changes or by wrapping lines).
-
-*For Thunderbird users:* Before submitting a patch, please open *Preferences >
-Advanced > General > Config Editor*, find the key
-``mail.content_disposition_type``, and set its value to ``1``. Without this
-setting, Thunderbird sends your attachment using ``Content-Disposition: inline``
-rather than ``Content-Disposition: attachment``. Apple Mail gamely displays such
-a file inline, making it difficult to work with for reviewers using that
-program.
+Once your patch is ready, please  follow
+:ref:`Phabricator#requesting-a-review-via-the-web-interface <phabricator-request-review-web>`
+to request a review using Phabricator (or commit it directly if applicable).
+Alternatively, some patches get sent to the project's development list or
+component of the LLVM bug tracker, but the Phabricator is the primary place for
+reviews and should generally be preferred.
 
 When submitting patches, please do not add confidentiality or non-disclosure
 notices to the patches themselves.  These notices conflict with the LLVM
Index: docs/Contributing.rst
===================================================================
--- docs/Contributing.rst
+++ docs/Contributing.rst
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
 * be an isolated change. Independent changes should be submitted as separate patches as this makes reviewing easier.
 
 To get a patch accepted, it has to be reviewed by the LLVM community. This can
-be done using `LLVM's Phabricator`_ or the llvm-commits mailing list.
+be done using `LLVM's Phabricator`_.
 Please  follow :ref:`Phabricator#requesting-a-review-via-the-web-interface <phabricator-request-review-web>`
 to request a review using Phabricator.
 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D63488.205313.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20190618/c6f7cebb/attachment.bin>