Add review process overview to review-policy.md #2088
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This text is great. Jane put this together after talking with the team in some detail in a lang-docs office hours call. In this commit, we revise the wording slightly and adjust capitalization to match our style.
traviscross
force-pushed
the
review-process-overview
branch
from
33f3a37 to
81ed7c1
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
traviscross
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2025
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2025
Update books ## rust-lang/book 2 commits in f78ab89d7545ac17780e6a367055cc089f4cd2ec..8c0eacd5c4acbb650497454f3a58c9e8083202a4 2025-11-18 15:36:41 UTC to 2025-11-18 15:33:41 UTC - Update ch07-02-defining-modules-to-control-scope-and-privacy.md (rust-lang/book#4570) - use AND for search terms (rust-lang/book#4573) ## rust-lang/reference 4 commits in f9f1d2a4149f02582aec2f8fcdfa5b596193b4e2..f2ac173df9906de5c03b0ee50653321ef1c4ebe8 2025-11-26 02:52:23 UTC to 2025-11-18 21:54:51 UTC - document `cfg` conditions on inline assembly templates and operands (rust-lang/reference#2063) - remove unused "link reference definitions" (rust-lang/reference#2092) - Add review process overview to review-policy.md (rust-lang/reference#2088) - Remove restriction on dereferencing pointers in const (rust-lang/reference#2090) ## rust-lang/rust-by-example 5 commits in f944161716230641605b5e3733e1c81f10047fd4..111cfae2f9c3a43f7b0ff8fa68c51cc8f930637c 2025-11-27 20:16:42 UTC to 2025-11-20 21:40:02 UTC - Use `From::from` fn pointer to convert to boxed errors (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1906) - link the _tuple_ page instead "TupleStruct" (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1909) - enum_use.md: avoid an uncommon term (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1976) - make search less surprising (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1975) - Update documentation for `any` function in iter_any.md (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1973)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This section slightly duplicates the text below. In the review flowchart, this policy already discusses "checking if the content is true," which I feel corresponds to the defensibility goal, and the "is this editorially sound" and "is this well written," which I think are aimed more directly at reviewers and ensuring they bring a consistent tone to the contribution pre-merge. Understandability isn't explicitly mentioned in the policy, afaict.
With this new section, I wanted to speak more to both reviewers and authors, including subject-matter reviewers who aren't necessarily bringing the editorial expertise to help set better expectations for how the back-and-forth of the review process is expected to work. As part of that, I wanted to explain the underlying rationale for these goals/principles of the review process. I'm not really sure the voice one fits in as it's currently structured, since it's sort of a goal/non-goal depending on who the reader is, but this seemed good enough for a first pass.