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

[Chris Lattner via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

lattner accepted this revision.
lattner added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

This looks really great to me Philip, thank you for documenting this for the community!



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:303
+
+Reverts
+-------
----------------
nit: I'd expand this out to "Patch reversion policy" or "Policy for reverting patches"


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:307-309
+allowing rapid iterative development.  As such, we tend to make much heavier
+use of reverts than some other open source projects, and our norms are a bit
+different.
----------------
Wordsmithing, I'd recommend explaining why, so it doesn't sound capritious.  Something like:

As such, we tend to make much heavier use of reverts to keep the tree healthy than some other open source projects, and our norms are a bit different.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:374-375
+* Reverts should be reasonably timely.  A change submitted two hours ago
+  can be reverted without prior discussion.  A change submitted two years ago
+  probably shouldn't be.  Where exactly the transition point is is hard to say,
+  but it's probably in the handful of days in tree territory.  If you are
----------------
> A change submitted two years ago probably shouldn't be.

I'd go stronger:

A change submitted two years ago should not be.


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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305