[llvm-dev] Documenting community norms around reverts
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 24 15:52:51 PDT 2021
I've posted a patch <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99305> to document our
norms around reverts. I was recently surprised to not find anything in
this spirit. A lot of newcomers find our norms a bit odd, so having
this explicitly spelled out seems very worthwhile.
I tried to stick to stuff that is uncontroversial in the community. If
you see something here that less than 90+% of the community would agree
with, please point it out. I'll remove it for now, and possibly return
to individual points if warranted in future reviews.
p.s. Draft text follows, but please make detailed wording suggestions on
As a community, we strongly value having the tip of tree in a good
such, we tend to make much heaver use of reverts than some other open source
projects, and our norms are a bit different.
When should you revert your own change?
* Any time you learn of a serious problem with a change, you should
We strongly encourage "revert to green" as opposed to "fixing
encourage reverting first, investigating offline, and then reapplying the
fixed patch - possibly after another round of review if warranted.
* If you break a buildbot in a way which can't be quickly fixed, please
* If a test case is reported in the commit thread which demonstrates a
please revert, and investigate offline.
* If you are asked to revert by another contributor, please revert and
the merits of the request offline (unless doing so would further
trip of tree).
When should you revert someone else's change?
* In general, if the author themselves would revert the change per these
guidelines, we encourage other contributors to do so as a favor to the
author. This is one of the major cases where our norms differ from
we generally consider reverting someones change to be a favor to
don't expect contributors to be always available, and the assurance
problematic patch will be reverted and we can return to it at our next
opportunity enables this.
* The other case for a third-party revert is for serious norm
violations. As a
general rule, you should never be reverting a patch for this unless
already started a discussion highlight the problem on the original commit
thread. There are exceptions where a rapid revert for a norm
be called for, but if those are relevant for you, you already know.
What are the expectations around a revert?
* You should be sure that reverting the change improves the stability of tip
of tree. Sometimes reverting one change in a series can worsen things
instead of improving them. We expect reasonable judgment to ensure that
the proper patch or set of patches is being reverted.
* You should have a publicly reproducible test case ready to share. It is
not considered reasonable to revert without at least the promise to
a public test case in the near term. We encourage sharing of test
commit threads, or in PRs. We encourage the reverter to minimize the
case and to prune dependencies where practical.
* Reverts should be reasonably timely. A change submitted two hours ago
can be reverted by a third-party without prior discussion. A change
submitted two years ago probably shouldn't be. Where exactly the
point is is hard to say, but it's probably in the handful of days in tree
territory. If you are unsure, we encourage you to reply to the commit
thread, give the author a bit to respond, and then proceed with the
if the author doesn't seem to be actively responding.
How should you respond if someone reverted your change?
* In general, the appropriate response is to start by thanking them. If you
need more information to address the problem, please follow up in the
original commit thread with the reverting patch author.
* It is normal and healthy to have patches reverted. Having a patch
does not neccessarily mean you did anything wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev