[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:330
+* In general, if the author themselves would revert the change per these
+  guidelines, we encourage other contributors to do so as a favor to the
+  author.  This is one of the major cases where our norms differ from others;
----------------
probinson wrote:
> reames wrote:
> > echristo wrote:
> > > reames wrote:
> > > > echristo wrote:
> > > > > I think wording wise we can just remove the "... as a favor to the author." here and reword a little below...
> > > > I left this one as is.  I took all your other edits, but taking this out seems to loose an important point to me.  
> > > I followed up offline here with an article that would help illustrate my point, but for me not having the "I'm doing you a favor" is important. It's not a favor, it's just how we work. There's no obligation or reciprocity expected which the text gives the impression of.
> > You did, my apologies for not acknowledging that.
> > 
> > I read the article you sent, it was definitely interesting, but it didn't change my take on this.
> > 
> > I'm going to defer to Chris on this.  If he wants a change, I'll make it.  If he's okay with the current wording, I'll leave it as is.
> Maybe "courtesy" rather than "favor" would have less implication of an obligation?  Overall we are expected to be courteous to one another.
Great suggestion, that would work for me.  Eric?


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305