[llvm-dev] LLVM Incubator + new projects draft (original) (raw)

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 6 10:32:09 PDT 2020

On 7/1/20 2:12 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:

On Jul 1, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com_ _<mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: This looks to be a reasonable starting point. A couple of nit picks, none are blockers. 1. I'd hold off on handing out the sub-domain for the moment.  This feels more official than we probably want for a random incubator.  I reserve the right to change my mind here, but maybe we should delay this part until we see what actual incubators look like?  As an alternative, maybe have a common incubator.llvm.org <http://incubator.llvm.org> page which links to the docs defining the process and lists all active incubators with links to docs in their own repo? Sounds great, I’m happy to take this out - this avoids “promising” it, but we can still discuss it on a case-by-case basis.  I changed this to "Other infrastructure integration can be discussed on a case-by-case basis.”, because there are bug tracker and other things as well. 2. The must/should terminology should probably be factored out once and referenced.  As written, it takes a little effort to be sure the definitions are the same between the two uses. I’m not sure what you mean here.  Do you have a recommended approach? Land yours, and if I still care, I'll send a patch.  :) 3. I'm not sure I agree with the no-code standard.  I agree with minimal code, but I think an incubator should be established enough to be discussed concretely (e.g. "what is" vs "ideals"). I hear what you’re saying, but I think we can handle this as part of the approval process.  We can bounce of things that qualitatively don’t feel credible and give guidance there, but can still be receptive if something seems like a promising direction. 4. As I mentioned before, I'd advocate for the notion of a sponsor (an existing LLVM contributor) for each incubator.  I'd have that a must on the incubator list. Yes, this is a good idea.  The problem here is “how do we decide who qualifies as a sponsor?”.  I don’t know a good way to say that - someone with N years of LLVM experience, M patches, …?  How does this get explained?

You said elsewhere that we could let this evolve with experience.  I would take that sentiment, and apply it here.  I'm really more concerned about the expectations of the role (i.e. some human familiar with LLVM norms willing to invest non-trivial time), than I am the details of who is eligible.

Since I don't want this to be blocking item, why don't we land what you have and I can draft something as a patch?  It seems like there's some general agreement about a potential issue and we just need to find a way to address it.

-Chris

Philip

On 6/30/20 8:29 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote: Looks like a good proposal to me as-is! Thanks for putting this together to both of you :)

-- Mehdi

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:49 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hah, whoops, sorry about that.  This is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KWl4LqTo5CgJxx3i04-FkbXiPQMus/edit -Chris On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Thomas Lively <tlively at google.com_ _<mailto:tlively at google.com>> wrote: Hi Chris, I'm also seeing an access denied error on the first link you shared, and although I can access the second document, it doesn't look like the document you meant to share. It looks like a one pager on ML in Swift. Thomas On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:05 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com <mailto:lebedev.ri at gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received.  I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in general in the LLVM Developer Policy.  To help with both of these Stella and I worked together to draft up a new section for the LLVM developer policy (incorporating the existing “New Targets” section). Ahead of proposing a Phabricator patch, we put it into this google doc, I’d love to get feedback on it from anyone who is interested in this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KWl4LqTo5CgJxx3i04-FkbXiPQMus/edit Currently it doesn't open, "You need access", sanity check: is viewing allowed for everybody? It says that “anyone on the internet is allowed to comment”, maybe this link will work better?: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lC7cOJ2Iiqdx62o81J5YP7RzFHi8k2Rkt0zla-Kh6no/edit?usp=sharing In any case, if google docs isn’t cooperating, then you can check it out when it gets to Phabricator. -Chris

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200706/879c4a18/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list