Only a single LGTM is required. Reviewers are expected to only LGTM
patches they're confident in their knowledge of. Reviewers may review
and provide suggestions, but explicitly defer LGTM to someone else.
This is encouraged and a good way for new contributors to learn the code.
Whilst I get what you're trying to say, I'm not particularly comfortable with this particular suggestion as it stands: I regularly am one of two or three active reviewers on something, often spread out over different timezones, and I might be happy with it, in which case I'd signal that with an LGTM, but others might not be ready for it to be committed. Sometimes I'll ask for the author to wait to commit until one or more of the other reviewers are happy too, but other times I forget to explicitly say this. Perhaps a couple of sentences could be added to the end of this paragraph to capture this approach:
"If multiple reviewers have been actively reviewing the patch, it is generally courteous to allow all of them a chance to give their LGTM before committing, after one LGTM has been received. The reviewer who gives the original LGTM may suggest an appropriate amount of time to wait before committing in this case."
What I want to avoid is me (UK timezone) making some suggestions on a patch proposed by someone e.g. in the US, then a reviewer from the US getting into an active discussion, proposing a counter-suggestion, which gets adopted and LGTMed by that reviewer, resulting in a commit before I've had a chance to follow up on my comments etc. Obviously I can make post-commit requests, but sometimes it feels like the bar for suggestions post-commit is higher, and therefore my comments might not reach that level etc.
I agree with this. I was planning on proposing wording along the lines of the following, adding to the original suggestion:
When providing an unqualified LGTM (approval to commit), it is the responsibility of the reviewer to have reviewed all of the discussion and feedback from all reviewers ensuring that all feedback has been addressed and that all other reviewers will almost surely be satisfied with the patch being approved. If unsure, the reviewer should provide a qualified approval, (e.g., "LGTM, but please wait for @someone, @someone_else"). You may also do this if you are fairly certain that a particular community member will wish to review, even if that person hasn't done so yet (although don't wait for more than one week if that person has not responded; if you think something is "must see" by a wider audience, it should have an RFC). If it is likely that others will want to review a recently-posted patch, especially if there might be objections, but no one else has done so yet, it is also polite to provide a qualified approval (e.g., "LGTM, but please wait for a couple days in case others wish to review").
Thoughts?
-Hal
James
+ 1 in general, a couple of suggestions
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.
LLVM Developer Policy — LLVM 18.0.0git documentation
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).
Authors are encouraged to interpret questions as reasons to reexamine
the readability of the code in question. Structural changes, or further
comments may be appropriate.
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.
If the path forward is not clear - because the patch is too large to
meaningful review, or direction needs to be settled - it is fine to
suggest a clear next step (e.g. landing a refactoring) followed by a
re-review. Please state explicitly if the path forward is unclear to
prevent confusions on the part of the author.
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
A couple of additional things:
Only a single LGTM is required. Reviewers are expected to only LGTM
patches they're confident in their knowledge of. Reviewers may review
and provide suggestions, but explicitly defer LGTM to someone else.
This is encouraged and a good way for new contributors to learn the code.
There is a cultural expectation that at least one reviewer is from a
different organization than the author of the patch. If that's not
possible, care should be taken to ensure overall direction has been
widely accepted.
Post commit review is encouraged via either phabricator or email. There
is a strong expectation that authors respond promptly to post commit
feedback and address it. Failure to do so is cause for the patch to be
reverted. If substantial problems are identified, it is expected that
the patch is reverted, fixed offline, and then recommitted (possibly
after further review.)
