[PATCH] D99305: [docs] Document our norms around reverts
Paul Robinson via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 29 06:56:21 PDT 2021
probinson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:362
+ requires hardware patch author doesn't have access to, sharp regression in
+ compile time of internal workload, etc..), the reverter is expected to be
+ strongly proactive about working with the patch author to debug and test
----------------
hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> reames wrote:
> > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > > Suggest not to have two periods for `etc.`.
> > This is an ellipsis to indicate the list is not complete. I believe this is correct usage. Some sources say it must be three periods (not two), but I see both in regular usage.
> I've never heard of two period ellipses being considered formally correct. I think `etc.` is enough to indicate that the list is not complete.
Agreed, ellipsis after "etc." is redundant. Also have never seen a two-period ellipsis.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list