[PATCH] D99305: [docs] Document our norms around reverts

[Philip Reames via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

reames added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:317-318
+* If you break a buildbot in a way which can't be quickly fixed, please revert.
+* If a test case is reported in the commit thread which demonstrates a problem
+  please revert, and investigate offline.
+* If you receive substantial :ref:`post-commit review <post_commit_review>`
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> How portable and self-contained is this test case?
I can't think of anyway to craft a useful guideline here (beyond what is already said elsewhere).  If you have suggested wording, please share.

(Though, do you mind if we defer this to a future change?  This seems minor compared to the rest of it.)


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:320
+* If you receive substantial :ref:`post-commit review <post_commit_review>`
+  feedback, please revert and address said feedback before recommitting.
+  (Possibly after another round of review.)
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> ... doesn't the "further destabilize" note below actually apply here too?
Judgement is always required.  I don't think it's useful to repeat that in every guideline.  Do you think I need to emphasize that more somewhere?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:323
+* If you are asked to revert by another contributor, please revert and discuss
+  the merits of the request offline (unless doing so would further destabilize
+  tip of tree).
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> This point along with the "if the author themselves would revert" below means that unilateral reverts without discussion is being encouraged here. I'm not in favour of action without discussion.
This is our long standing practice.  


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305