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

[Jordan Rupprecht via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

rupprecht resigned from this revision.
rupprecht added a comment.

I don't have anything more to add now, so resigning now & leaving final thoughts and wording nits to other reviewers.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:336-337
+  opportunity enables this.
+* The other case for a third-party revert is for serious norm violations.
+  Such situations are rare.
+
----------------
I don't know if I have a specific suggestion that is better, but I'm not a fan of the wording here, especially with the "serious norm violations" wording.

While I agree with the general policy around timely reverts, starting a discussion before reverting someone else's change, etc., I also think that documenting these as "serious norm violations" unnecessarily escalates these cases when they do happen. If someone has reverted a change that falls into this category, there's a decent chance that it wasn't an intentional norms violation, and the discussion should start out with "Hey, can we talk more about this revert? I don't know if reverting was the right decision here" and not "This is a serious norms violation as documented in [link to these docs], please undo the revert".


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305