[PATCH] D89995: Make the post-commit review expectations more explicit with respect to revert

[Mehdi AMINI via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mehdi_amini added a comment.

In D89995#2354061 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89995#2354061>, @nhaehnle wrote:

> Overall, I think the policy change proposed here isn't entirely unreasonable, but I do think it needs to be treated as a change of policy.

I disagree strongly here.

> Not everybody is necessarily aware of a 4 year old email thread;  [...] Hidden tribal knowledge is the opposite of those ideals.

Hence why I'm making the policy explicit.

> Back to the proposal itself: The problem I'm seeing (with post-commit review in general, but especially with this change) is that it exacerbates the dysfunction and arbitrariness of the LLVM review process. That's a practical problem because erring too much on the side of stasis blocks progress on dependent work, especially if that dependent work requires collaboration between multiple developers.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but addressing the problem of code review practices and how to unblock such review is orthogonal 1) to the revert practice and 2) writing down the existing policy.

> I think this needs a solution. That solution can be a separate discussion, but I think it ought to be adopted before making the problem worse.

This patch isn't making anything worse, it is instructing a wider range of people who haven't been very involved upstream about the current upstream expectations.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D89995/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D89995