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

Chris Lattner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 6 16:50:08 PDT 2020

On Jul 6, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:

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. :)

WFM! :)

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.

Sounds great. I think this is something we can handle qualitatively as a concern raised in the RFC stage based on the details of the proposal. The LLVM Developer Policy doesn’t have to be a complete list of criteria, it just provides a general framework to set expectations.

Thank you for the feedback Philip!

-Chris

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200706/13008759/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list