[PATCH] D111723: first draft of a written policy around git repos

[Kristof Beyls via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

kristof.beyls added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RepoPolicy.md:17-18
+  [llvm-project](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
+* The repo contains a copy of the `LICENSE.TXT` from
+  [llvm-project](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).
+
----------------
is the URL ending in CONTRIBUTING.md the right URL for LICENSE.TXT here?
I guess that in special circumstances, there could be an exception for a repo to use a different license? E.g. it seems the existing https://github.com/llvm/bugzilla2gitlab and https://github.com/llvm/phabricator repos have different licenses?
I do agree that we should require a LICENSE.TXT or alternative mechanism to clearly document the license covering the repo.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RepoPolicy.md:30
+Some 3rd party applications require write access to our GitHub organisation in
+order to work properly. Typical examples are continuous integration provides
+that report build results back to GitHub. We consider granting access to such
----------------
s/provides/providers/?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111723/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111723