238 lines
12 KiB
ReStructuredText
238 lines
12 KiB
ReStructuredText
=====================================
|
|
LLVM Code-Review Policy and Practices
|
|
=====================================
|
|
|
|
LLVM's code-review policy and practices help maintain high code quality across
|
|
the project. Specifically, our code review process aims to:
|
|
|
|
* Improve readability and maintainability.
|
|
* Improve robustness and prevent the introduction of defects.
|
|
* Best leverage the experience of other contributors for each proposed change.
|
|
* Help grow and develop new contributors, through mentorship by community leaders.
|
|
|
|
It is important for all contributors to understand our code-review
|
|
practices and participate in the code-review process.
|
|
|
|
General Policies
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
What Code Should Be Reviewed?
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
All developers are required to have significant changes reviewed before they
|
|
are committed to the repository.
|
|
|
|
Must Code Be Reviewed Prior to Being Committed?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Code can be reviewed either before it is committed or after. We expect
|
|
significant patches to be reviewed before being committed. Smaller patches
|
|
(or patches where the developer owns the component) that meet
|
|
likely-community-consensus requirements (as apply to all patch approvals) can
|
|
be committed prior to an explicit review. In situations where there is any
|
|
uncertainty, a patch should be reviewed prior to being committed.
|
|
|
|
Please note that the developer responsible for a patch is also
|
|
responsible for making all necessary review-related changes, including
|
|
those requested during any post-commit review.
|
|
|
|
Can Code Be Reviewed After It Is Committed?
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Post-commit review is encouraged, and can be accomplished using any of the
|
|
tools detailed below. 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.
|
|
|
|
In addition, if substantial problems are identified, it is expected that the
|
|
patch is reverted and fixed offline. Before being recommitted, the patch
|
|
generally undergoes further review, including by the community member who
|
|
identified the problem and, in cases where the patch triggered a
|
|
hardware-specific buildbot failure, a community member with access to hardware
|
|
similar to that on the buildbot that the patch previously caused to fail.
|
|
|
|
Please note: The bar for post-commit feedback is not higher than for pre-commit
|
|
feedback. Don't delay unnecessarily in providing feedback. However, if you see
|
|
something after code has been committed about which you would have commented
|
|
pre-commit (had you noticed it earlier), please feel free to provide that
|
|
feedback at any time.
|
|
|
|
That having been said, if a substantial period of time has passed since the
|
|
original change was committed, it may be better to create a new patch to
|
|
address the issues than comment on the original commit. The original patch
|
|
author, for example, might no longer be an active contributor to the project.
|
|
|
|
What Tools Are Used for Code Review?
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Code reviews are conducted, in order of preference, on our web-based
|
|
code-review tool (see :doc:`Phabricator`), by email on the relevant project's
|
|
commit mailing list, on the project's development list, or on the bug tracker.
|
|
|
|
When Is an RFC Required?
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
Some changes are too significant for just a code review. Changes that should
|
|
change the LLVM Language Reference (e.g., adding new target-independent
|
|
intrinsics), adding language extensions in Clang, and so on, require an RFC
|
|
(Request for Comment) email on the project's ``*-dev`` mailing list first. For
|
|
changes that promise significant impact on users and/or downstream code bases,
|
|
reviewers can request an RFC achieving consensus before proceeding with code
|
|
review. That having been said, posting initial patches can help with
|
|
discussions on an RFC.
|
|
|
|
Code-Review Workflow
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the patch is
|
|
ready to be committed. Specifically, once a patch is sent out for review, it
|
|
needs an explicit approval before it is committed. Do not assume silent
|
|
approval, or solicit objections to a patch with a deadline.
|
|
|
|
Acknowledge All Reviewer Feedback
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
All comments by reviewers should be acknowledged by the patch author. It is
|
|
generally expected that suggested changes will be incorporated into a future
|
|
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 a new patch
|
|
does not address all outstanding feedback, the author should explicitly state
|
|
that when providing the updated patch. When using the web-based code-review
|
|
tool, such notes can be provided in the "Diff" description (which is different
|
|
from the description of the "Differential Revision" as a whole used for the
|
|
commit message).
|
|
|
|
If you suggest changes in a code review, but don't wish the suggestion to be
|
|
interpreted this strongly, please state so explicitly.
|
|
|
|
Aim to Make Efficient Use of Everyone's Time
|
|
--------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
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 and reviewers to make the most efficient
|
|
use of their time.
|
|
|
|
LGTM - How a Patch Is Accepted
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A patch is approved to be committed when a reviewer accepts it, and this is
|
|
almost always associated with a message containing the text "LGTM" (which
|
|
stands for Looks Good To Me). Only approval from a single reviewer is required.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Note that, if a reviewer has requested a particular community member to review,
|
|
and after a week that community member has yet to respond, feel free to ping
|
|
the patch (which literally means submitting a comment on the patch with the
|
|
word, "Ping."), or alternatively, ask the original reviewer for further
|
|
suggestions.
|
|
|
|
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 of days in case others wish to review"). If approval is received very
|
|
quickly, a patch author may also elect to wait before committing (and this is
|
|
certainly considered polite for non-trivial patches). Especially given the
|
|
global nature of our community, this waiting time should be at least 24 hours.
|
|
Please also be mindful of weekends and major holidays.
|
|
|
|
Our goal is to ensure community consensus around design decisions and
|
|
significant implementation choices, and one responsibility of a reviewer, when
|
|
providing an overall approval for a patch, is to be reasonably sure that such
|
|
consensus exists. If you're not familiar enough with the community to know,
|
|
then you shouldn't be providing final approval to commit. A reviewer providing
|
|
final approval should have commit access to the LLVM project.
|
|
|
|
Every patch should be reviewed by at least one technical expert in the areas of
|
|
the project affected by the change.
|
|
|
|
Splitting Requests and Conditional Acceptance
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Reviewers may request certain aspects of a patch to be broken out into separate
|
|
patches for independent review. Reviewers may also 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). Moreover, reviewers can 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.
|
|
|
|
Don't Unintentionally Block a Review
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Who Can/Should Review Code?
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
Non-Experts Should Review Code
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
You do not need to be an expert in some area of the code base 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. Please
|
|
remember that it is not in the long-term best interest of the community to have
|
|
components that are only understood well by a small number of people. Extra
|
|
comments and/or test cases can often help (and asking for comments in the test
|
|
cases is fine as well).
|
|
|
|
Moreover, authors are encouraged to interpret questions as a reason to reexamine
|
|
the readability of the code in question. Structural changes, or further
|
|
comments, may be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
If you're new to the LLVM community, you might also find this presentation helpful:
|
|
.. _How to Contribute to LLVM, A 2019 LLVM Developers' Meeting Presentation: https://youtu.be/C5Y977rLqpw
|
|
|
|
A good way for new contributors to increase their knowledge of the code base is
|
|
to review code. It is perfectly acceptable to review code and explicitly
|
|
defer to others for approval decisions.
|
|
|
|
Experts Should Review Code
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
If you are an expert in an area of the compiler affected by a proposed patch,
|
|
then you are highly encouraged to review the code. If you are a relevant code
|
|
owner, and no other experts are reviewing a patch, you must either help arrange
|
|
for an expert to review the patch or review it yourself.
|
|
|
|
Code Reviews, Speed, and Reciprocity
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Sometimes code reviews will take longer than you might hope, especially for
|
|
larger features. Common ways to speed up review times for your patches are:
|
|
|
|
* Review other people's patches. If you help out, everybody will be more
|
|
willing to do the same for you; goodwill is our currency.
|
|
* Ping the patch. If it is urgent, provide reasons why it is important to you to
|
|
get this patch landed and ping it every couple of days. If it is
|
|
not urgent, the common courtesy ping rate is one week. Remember that you're
|
|
asking for valuable time from other professional developers.
|
|
* Ask for help on IRC. Developers on IRC will be able to either help you
|
|
directly, or tell you who might be a good reviewer.
|
|
* Split your patch into multiple smaller patches that build on each other. The
|
|
smaller your patch is, the higher the probability that somebody will take a quick
|
|
look at it. When doing this, it is helpful to add "[N/M]" (for 1 <= N <= M) to
|
|
the title of each patch in the series, so it is clear that there is an order
|
|
and what that order is.
|
|
|
|
Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and
|
|
authors. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should return the
|
|
favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review and give feedback
|
|
on a patch, but approval of patches should be consistent with the policy above.
|