[llvm-dev] [RFC] High-Level Code-Review Documentation Update

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Sounds generally accurate & good to me.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> This all sounds good to me, and reflects certainly how I review and am
> reviewed. I don't think I have any additional suggestions.
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 03:46, Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, everyone,
>>
>> I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our
>> code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our
>> community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on
>> code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to
>> new developers.
>>
>>    http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews
>>
>> I would like to compose a patch to update this, but before I do that, I
>> want to highlight some of my thoughts to get feedback. My intent is to
>> capture our community best practices in writing so that people new to
>> our community understand our processes and expectations. Here are some
>> things that I would like to capture:
>>
>>   1. You do not need to be an expert in some area of the compiler to
>> review patches; it's fine to ask questions about what some piece of code
>> is doing. If it's not clear to you what is going on, you're unlikely to
>> be the only one. Extra comments and/or test cases can often help (and
>> asking for comments in the test cases is fine as well).
>>
>>   2. If you review a patch, but don't intend for the review process to
>> block on your approval, please state that explicitly. Out of courtesy,
>> we generally wait on committing a patch until all reviewers are
>> satisfied, and if you don't intend to look at the patch again in a
>> timely fashion, please communicate that fact in the review.
>>
>>   3. All comments by reviewers should be addressed by the patch author.
>> It is generally expected that suggested changes will be incorporated
>> into the next revision of the patch unless the author and/or other
>> reviewers can articulate a good reason to do otherwise (and then the
>> reviewers must agree). If you suggest changes in a code review, but
>> don't wish the suggestion to be interpreted this strongly, please state
>> so explicitly.
>>
>>   4. Reviewers may request certain aspects of a patch to be broken out
>> into separate patches for independent review, and also, reviewers may
>> accept a patch conditioned on the author providing a follow-up patch
>> addressing some particular issue or concern (although no committed patch
>> should leave the project in a broken state). Reviewers can also accept a
>> patch conditioned on the author applying some set of minor updates prior
>> to committing, and when applicable, it is polite for reviewers to do so.
>>
>>   5. Aim to limit the number of iterations in the review process. For
>> example, when suggesting a change, if you want the author to make a
>> similar set of changes at other places in the code, please explain the
>> requested set of changes so that the author can make all of the changes
>> at once. If a patch will require multiple steps prior to approval (e.g.,
>> splitting, refactoring, posting data from specific performance tests),
>> please explain as many of these up front as possible. This allows the
>> patch author to make the most-efficient use of his or her time.
>>
>>   6. Some changes are too large for just a code review. Changes that
>> should change the Language Reference (e.g., adding new
>> target-independent intrinsics), adding language extensions in Clang, and
>> so on, require an RFC on *-dev first. For changes that promise
>> significant impact on users and/or downstream code bases, reviewers can
>> request an RFC (Request for Comment) achieving consensus before
>> proceeding with code review. That having been said, posting initial
>> patches can help with discussions on an RFC.
>>
>> Lastly, the current text reads, "Code reviews are conducted by email on
>> the relevant project’s commit mailing list, or alternatively on the
>> project’s development list or bug tracker.", and then only later
>> mentions Phabricator. I'd like to move Phabricator to be mentioned on
>> this line before the other methods.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Hal
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191115/671eca93/attachment-0001.html>