[PATCH] D90761: [docs] Adding a Support Policy

[Christopher Tetreault via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ctetreau added a comment.

I've suggested some changes, but this seems reasonable to me.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:28
+But the maintenance costs of such diverse ecosystem is non trivial, so we divide
+the level of support in two tiers: core and peripheral (satellite?), with two
+different levels of impact and responsibilities. Those tiers refer only to the
----------------
I think "peripheral" is fine. Informally, we want a "main things tier" and "side things tier", and I think "peripheral" is a suitably dignified word for "side things".


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:66
+   must be reverted, as per review policy.
+ * Bit-rot will downgrade areas to the lower tier or be removed, depending on
+   new or existing efforts by a sub-community to pick up support in a timely
----------------
Wording here is a bit weird.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:108
+ * Have a clear benefit for remaining in the main repository, catering to at
+   least one active sub-community (upstream or downstream).
+ * Be actively maintained by such sub-community and have its problems addressed
----------------
I'm not quite sure what the best way to express this is, but I feel like things in the peripheral tier must have at least one active subcommunity upstream or at least two disjoint active subcommunities downstream.

I.E. "somebody uses it in upstream" or "two separate downstreams use it"


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:110
+ * Be actively maintained by such sub-community and have its problems addressed
+   in a timely manner, even if concerns come from outside of the sub-community.
+
----------------
The way I read this, I as a user of a peripheral tier component can open a bug against said component on bugs.llvm.org, and that this bug is valid and is expected to be addressed.

Is this correct? If so, maybe this should be explicitly codified here.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:171
+
+However clear the needs for removal are, we should take a incremental approach
+to deprecating code, especially when there's still a sub-community that cares
----------------



CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90761/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90761