Post-commit reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator, This still seems like a change in practice that I'm not in favor of, personally - due to the current divergence between email and phab review feedback. Yes, this would be one way to unify it - but I'm not sure it's necessarily the best one.
I'd suggest leaving this to a separate proposal so as not to complicate/muddy the waters of the formalization of pre-commit review practice. I simply broke up the existing sentence from the documentation into two parts, one about pre-commit reviews and the other about all other code reviews (which are basically the post-commit reviews, although I’m open to corrections here). The first part was modified to reflect the proposed change, the second part was left unchanged. In this RFC I only want to change the part of the documentation that pertains specifically to pre-commit code reviews. If the wording I used creates confusion, what would you suggest instead? -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparz...@quicinc.com<mailto:kparz...@quicinc.com> AI tools development From: David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:40 PM To: Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparz...@quicinc.com> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>; clangd-...@lists.llvm.org; openmp-...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; libcxx-...@lists.llvm.org; flang-...@lists.llvm.org; parallel_libs-...@lists.llvm.org Subject: [EXT] Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Deprecate pre-commit email code reviews in favor of Phabricator On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:12 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: This is a revision of the previous RFC[1]. This RFC limits the scope to pre-commit reviews only. Statement: Our current code review policy states[2]: “Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator), by email on the relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development list, or on the bug tracker.” This proposal is to limit pre-commit code reviews only to Phabricator. This would apply to all projects in the LLVM monorepo. With the change in effect, the amended policy would read: “Pre-commit code reviews are conducted on our web-based code-review tool (see Code Reviews with Phabricator). I'm with you here ^, this seems to document/formalize existing practice - though does this accurately reflect all the projects in the mororepo? I get the impression that mlir, maybe flang, etc might be doing reviews differently? Post-commit reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on Phabricator, This still seems like a change in practice that I'm not in favor of, personally - due to the current divergence between email and phab review feedback. Yes, this would be one way to unify it - but I'm not sure it's necessarily the best one. I'd suggest leaving this to a separate proposal so as not to complicate/muddy the waters of the formalization of pre-commit review practice. by email on the relevant project’s commit mailing list, on the project’s development list, or on the bug tracker.” Current situation: 1. In a recent llvm-dev thread[3], Christian Kühnel pointed out that pre-commit code reviews rarely originate via an email (most are started on Phabricator), although, as others pointed out, email responses to an ongoing review are not uncommon. (That thread also contains examples of mishaps related to the email-Phabricator interactions, or email handling itself.) 2. We have Phabricator patches that automatically apply email comments to the Phabricator reviews, although reportedly this functionality is not fully reliable[4,5]. This can cause review comments to be lost in the email traffic. Benefits: 1. Single way of doing pre-commit code reviews: these code reviews are a key part of the development process, and having one way of performing them would make the process clearer and unambiguous. 2. Review authors and reviewers would only need to monitor one source of comments without the fear that a review comment may end up overlooked. 3. This change simply codifies an existing practice. Concerns: 1. Because of the larger variety, email clients may offer better accessibility options than web browsers. [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150344.html [2] https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#what-tools-are-used-for-code-review [3] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150129.html [4] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150136.html [5] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-April/150139.html -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparz...@quicinc.com<mailto:kparz...@quicinc.com> AI tools development _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list cfe-...@lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
