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

[Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> unconditionally.
>
> 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.
>

This is an interesting proposal. In practice, what I have seen is that
developers usually send out RFC (design of some kinds) to llvm-dev long
before the actual implementation, and the patch is submitted after RFC did
not get any objections. Would the late request like this come as a surprise
to the developer?

thanks,

David





>
> "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/20160308/97214a1b/attachment.html>