arsenm added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/docs/CodeReview.rst:34 +uncertainty, a patch should be reviewed prior to being committed. If pre-commit +code reviewes in a particular area have been requested, code should clear a +significantly higher bar, e.g., fixes, to be commited without review. ---------------- jdoerfert wrote: > hubert.reinterpretcast wrote: > > If I understand this correctly, this is meant to cover situations where > > reviewers are active in an area and indicated an interest in reviewing > > basically everything. This seems redundant to likely-community-consensus. > > If someone is active in an area of the code, they would already know which > > reviewers are active and the area-specific culture. If someone is not > > active in an area of the code, the likely-community-consensus requirement > > should be enough to cause them to request a review. > > > > Perhaps a clarification that "the likely-community-consensus requirement > > may vary depending on the specific area of the code" is enough. Or perhaps, > > "likely-community-consensus is not restricted to the content of the patch, > > but also includes the review process and culture". > > If I understand this correctly, this is meant to cover situations where > > reviewers are active in an area and indicated an interest in reviewing > > basically everything. > > Pretty much, yes. > > > This seems redundant to likely-community-consensus. If someone is active in > > an area of the code, they would already know which reviewers are active and > > the area-specific culture. If someone is not active in an area of the code, > > the likely-community-consensus requirement should be enough to cause them > > to request a review. > > I would have agreed with you but this is in practice unfortunately not true. > > > Perhaps a clarification that "the likely-community-consensus requirement > > may vary depending on the specific area of the code" is enough. Or perhaps, > > "likely-community-consensus is not restricted to the content of the patch, > > but also includes the review process and culture". > > I'm fine with either. At the end of the day this is supposed to make it clear > that reviews cannot be circumvented while pointing to this rule if it is > clear reviews were requested. Typo reviewes, and commited Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77683/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77683 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
