[llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

[Tom Stellard via llvm-dev]

On 10/5/21 9:05 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> # Proposal
> 
> The LLVM Foundation Board of Directors is seeking comment on the current state of Code Review
> within the LLVM Project and its sub-projects.   Phabricator is no longer actively maintained
> and we would like to move away from a self-hosted solution, so our goal is to determine if
> GitHub Pull Requests are a good alternative to our current code review tool: Phabricator.
> 
> Specifically we are looking for feedback on:
> - What features or properties make Github Pull Requests better than Phabricator?
> - What features or properties  make Phabricator better than GitHub Pull Requests?
> - What new workflows or process improvements will be possible with GitHub Pull Requests?
> - Which workflows aren’t possible with GitHub Pull Requests?
> - Any other information that you think will help the Board of Directors make the best decision.
> 
> # Where to Direct Feedback
> 
> Please provide feedback on the Infrastructure Working Group ticket[1].  This will make
> it easier to collect and consolidate the responses.   At the end of the comment period
> the Infrastructure Working Group will collect the feedback for further analysis and summarization.
> 
> # Timeline
> 
> The timeline for this RFC will be as follows:
> 
> - RFC posted on llvm-dev for public review and comment
> - 30 days after the date of posting, public comment closes.

Hi,

Just a reminder, please add your comments to the github issue[1] by
November 4.

-Tom


> - IWG will have 14 days from closure of public comments to review and summarize public
>    comments into a pros and cons list to be present to LLVM Foundation Board
> - Foundation Board will have 30 days to make a final decision about using GitHub Pull Requests
>    and then communicate a migration plan to the community.
> 
> Thank you,
> LLVM Foundation Board of Directors
> 
> [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-iwg/issues/73