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

[Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev]

On 3/9/2016 11:37 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev wrote:
> Slightly OT, but I wanted to raise a related point for clarity. I've
> noticed a general trend to interpret RFCs without response as approval
> to move forward.  This is not what it means; more often its that either
> a) the RFC is so off base no one has the time to explain why or b) no
> one is interested enough in the feature to respond. It's the
> responsibility of the RFC author to get explicit agreement.  This can be
> annoying and frustrating, but it is necessary.  Most of the late design
> blockages I've seen over the last couple of months fall into this category.

On that note, I'd suggest some sort of policy for responding to RFCs. 
 From the RFC proponent's perspective, it is a lot better to get any 
kind of feedback within a predictable time frame than to get none at 
all.  It doesn't have to be a detailed analysis, a general opinion would 
often be sufficient to see if the idea should be pursued further or not.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation