[llvm-dev] Formalize "revert for more design review" policy.

Sean Silva via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Mar 8 21:00:42 PST 2016

Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember two
cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is that as a
community we should honor "revert for more design review" requests

What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst
as an item at the end of the numbered list in
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews ?

#. Sometimes patches get committed that need more discussion.
   If a developer thinks that a patch would benefit from some more review
   and promptly communicates this, the patch should be reverted (preferably
   by the original author, unless they are unresponsive).
   Developers often disagree, and erring on the side of the developer
   asking for more review prevents any lingering disagreement over code in
   the tree.

"promptly" is there mostly to avoid suggesting a "necro-revert"; once the
code has been in tree for long enough at some point it would be more
appropriate to open a bug report or start a fresh discussion.

"unresponsive" add some nebulousness, but I think it's an important
exception to call out for the "preferably by the original author".

-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160308/3cf2d2d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: revertpolicy.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160308/3cf2d2d4/attachment.obj>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list