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

[Philip Reames via llvm-commits]

On 4/5/21 12:48 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 10:47 AM Philip Reames via Phabricator 
> <reviews at reviews.llvm.org <mailto:reviews at reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     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?
>
>
> Could work for now. Could you reframe the wording around "we are being 
> courteous to each other by helping keep top of tree working well"? I'd 
> support wording in those terms - it doesn't phrase things by imposing 
> obligations onto others.

Eric,

I took the "as a courtesy" wording, and plan to commit that unless you 
object.

I found your alternate wording hard to parse, and honestly, I'm not 
really seeing the distinction you're trying to make.  Could I ask you to 
post a patch with an attempt at rewording once this lands?  I'm not at 
all opposed to the idea, but I don't think I'm the right person to try 
drafting it.

Philip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20210406/d283a325/attachment.html>