[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] LLVM Releases: Upstream vs. Downstream / Distros

[Renato Golin via cfe-dev]

On 12 May 2016 at 17:15, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> But your position seems to be "this is a bad thing for folks", and the
> position we take is that it's explicitly a good thing.

Then I apologise again! :)

My point was that following ToT is perfect for developer teams working
*on* LLVM. Everyone should be doing that, and most people are. Check.

But for some people, including library users, LTS distributions and
some downstream releases (citation needed), having an up-to-date and
stable release *may* (citation needed) be the only stable way to
progress into newer LLVM technology.


> IE make ToT more appealing to follow, have folks follow that.
> Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but it needs a lot more evidence :)

There were responses on this thread that said it's possible and
desirable to test ToT better, than only validate releases, and I think
this is great. Mostly because ultimately this will eventually benefit
the releases anyway.

Maybe, the solution to the always-too-old-release problem is to get
better trunk and give up at all on releases, like Arch Linux rolling
releases (which I use), so I'm ok with it, too.

As long as we make it a clear and simple process, so upstream users
can benefit too, whatever works. :)

cheers,
--renato