reames added inline comments.

================
Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:349
 
-* If the patch has been reviewed, add a link to its review page, as shown
-  `here <https://www.llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#committing-a-change>`_.
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> reames wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > reames wrote:
> > > > > Removing this item seems very off topic for the change description, 
> > > > > and certainly hasn't been discussed in the linked thread.  Please add 
> > > > > this back in a separate commit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > (To be clear, no objections to the overall change, just the removal 
> > > > > of the phab link text.)
> > > > Hmm, I thought this was obsoleted by the new text (it is covered by 
> > > > "other kinds of metadata"). That said, losing that link is definitely a 
> > > > regression, so thank you for pointing this out! I'll find a way to add 
> > > > it back in (either as a stand-alone bullet point or incorporated into 
> > > > the new text).
> > > I restored the link in 
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a1562bbc63b49a70b39ba075d9a3332f50cea11d
> > >  as part of the new bullet; please let me know if you have additional 
> > > concerns.
> > That 90% covers it.  What's left is some minor framing.  I'd suggest 
> > separating that point into two.  The first should be recommended metadata 
> > (phab, issues link), and the second can be the additional metadata point.  
> > Something like:
> > 
> > ```
> > If the patch has been reviewed, add a link to its review page, as shown
> >   `here <https://www.llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#committing-a-change>`_. 
> > If the patch fixes a bug in GitHub Issues, we encourage adding a reference 
> > to the issue being closed, as described `here 
> > <https://llvm.org/docs/BugLifeCycle.html#resolving-closing-bugs>`_.
> > 
> > It is also acceptable to add other metadata to the commit message to 
> > automate processes, including for downstream consumers. and including links 
> > to resources that are not available to the entire community. However, such 
> > links and/or metadata should not be used in place of making the commit 
> > message self-explanatory.  
> > 
> > ```
> > All of the above is just reorganizing what you had written with some very 
> > minor copy editing.  I'd separately suggest adding the following sentence 
> > at the end of the second bullet.
> > 
> > Note that such non-public links are *only* allowed in commit messages, and 
> > should not be included in the submitted code.  
> I did some minor rewording for clarity, so how about:
> ```
> * If the patch has been reviewed, add a link to its review page, as shown
>   `here <https://www.llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#committing-a-change>`__.
>   If the patch fixes a bug in GitHub Issues, we encourage adding a reference 
> to
>   the issue being closed, as described
>   `here <https://llvm.org/docs/BugLifeCycle.html#resolving-closing-bugs>`__.
> 
> * It is also acceptable to add other metadata to the commit message to 
> automate
>   processes, including for downstream consumers. This metadata can include
>   links to resources that are not available to the entire community. However,
>   such links and/or metadata should not be used in place of making the commit
>   message self-explanatory.
> ```
> 
> > All of the above is just reorganizing what you had written with some very 
> > minor copy editing. I'd separately suggest adding the following sentence at 
> > the end of the second bullet.
> > 
> > Note that such non-public links are *only* allowed in commit messages, and 
> > should not be included in the submitted code.
> 
> I think this might need more wordsmithing, which is why I left out of the 
> simple reorganization. The non-public links aren't limited to commit messages 
> -- for example, they're fine to use in a phabricator review or github issue 
> comment, etc. So I don't want to be too restrictive with the wording, though 
> I agree with the intent. How about something along the lines of:
> 
> Note that such non-public links should not be included in the submitted code.
LGTM to both parts.  Wording is hard, and good catch on the second.  :)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D155081/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D155081

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to