[PATCH] D83182: Expand the LLVM Developer Policy to include new sections on adding a project to the LLVM Monorepo, and a second about the LLVM Incubator projects.

[Stephen Neuendorffer via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

stephenneuendorffer accepted this revision.
stephenneuendorffer added a comment.

I suggested a few minor rewrites that bugged me more on a second reading.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:534
+
+  * Generally, try to support LLVM and GCC versions from the last 3 years at a
+    minimum. This time-based guideline is not strict: we may support much older
----------------
complete sentence?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:546
+  * Once the RFC reaches consensus, update the CMake toolchain version checks as
+    well as the :doc:`getting started<GettingStarted>` guide. We want to
+    soft-error when developers compile LLVM. We say "soft-error" because the
----------------
"We want... " is awkward.  How about "This check should first be enabled as a 'soft-error' which can be turned into a warning using a CMake flag."


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:677-678
+in general <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorepo>`_ are great because they
+allow atomic commits to the project, simplify CI, and generally encourage
+collaboration across subcommunities.
+
----------------
Seems a little anthropomorphic.  how about " and make it easier for subcommunities to collaborate"


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:718
+code to prove their utility and grow a community.  This also allows
+collaboration between teams that have a special carveout for making
+contributions to projects under the LLVM umbrella.
----------------
"carveout" may not be something people are familiar with.  Maybe "teams that already have permission to make contributions..."


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D83182/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D83182