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

[Paul Robinson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

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