[PATCH] D47073: Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy

[Erich Keane via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

erichkeane added a comment.

In D47073#1359273 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073#1359273>, @chandlerc wrote:

> In D47073#1359266 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073#1359266>, @erichkeane wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, the stricter version of this patch received quite overwhelming support in May. We delayed it due to Google's limitations and yet we still don't seem to have made progress. This current patch is a result of a continued set of compromises to try to satisfy a few in the vocal minority. I'd suggest that we all agree to have an ACTUAL decision made on llvm-dev, rather than this constant state of consensus derailed by vocal minority.
>
>
> This *patch* does not matter to Google in any real sense that I'm aware of.... *All* of what I wrote in my latest comment is about this patch, and has nothing to do with the overall strategy of the LLVM project. And that feedback was given as a very active individual contributor to the project.
>
> Does Google care a great deal about the overall state of host compiler support and C++ version support of LLVM? Yes, it does. We expressed that, and so did others. That was done on the -dev list as well as in the BoF. I'm not really interested in re-arguing it here.
>
> But please try to take my feedback on this *patch* as just that. It is code review and feedback on the specific changes you are making. I'm genuinely trying to help get the CMake and documentation implementation *right* and useful for the project and the community, not for Google. I'm sorry that you're frustrated, I really am. But I am actually trying to help, and comments like this, IMO, are not constructive.


I acknowledge that you have different concerns than you did previously. I would simply like us to once and for all define what the acceptance criteria are for a patch like this. The fact that we have had a dozen llvm-dev conversations with overwhelming consensus blocked by a few vocal people is concerning.

This patch for example has been watered down excessively from a version with extensive support (the community minus vaguely 3) in an atempt to gain unanimous consent. However, despite multiple consessions, we've gained no support.

Is "a significant majority of the community" sufficent (in which case where we foolish to try to placate nay Sayers), or do we require unanimous consent?

Many of us conceded to delay any such decision on something like this due to Google's concerns, which was my point earlier. Now that they seem less concerned, I'd imagined we would be less blocked.  Instead, I notice that the consessions we made to placate a few have resulted in yet another denial of progress.

I am admittedly quite discouraged and frustrated, since this effort is constantly derailed by a vaguely defined and frequently changing process.

So I guess what I want is: how do we meaningfully progress this project? How do we prevent ourselves from being derailed by making consessions to the vocal minority? This patch had a meaningful amount of support in May as a much stronger and sane patch. Yet, these consessions made to the few critics are now the reason to reject it.  How do I avoid that next time?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073