[llvm-dev] [LLVMdev] [RFC] Developer Policy for LLVM C API

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

Just in case it wasn't said, I do want to thank you for sending out a
concrete proposal here, I really appreciate it. It's good to have more
proposals as direction.

I'm not sure what else I can say that I haven't as far as in this thread as
a proposal, I can resend it out with a migration plan if that helps?

-eric

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:20 AM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> BTW for those following along, I wrote up a concrete proposal saying
> basically that, at http://reviews.llvm.org/D12685, if anyone else was
> interested in providing their input.
>
> So far it's garnered a -1 from Eric.
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:34 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 18, 2015, at 10:41 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Let's not get this die. The C API is too valuable to let this die.
>> >
>> > I propose the following plan:
>> >  - Add tests for the current API. This will allow to make sure that
>> everything works and would ensure that changes are made intentionally, nto
>> accidentally.
>> >  - For area that do not exist in the C API right now, and for which
>> support seems needed, we establish a plan to support it according to
>> current functionality and planned evolution.
>> >  - It is understood that the C API require more stability than the C++
>> one as it is often used accross language boundary where type checking
>> cannot be done. On the other hand, no promise of stability is made so LLVM
>> can still evolve at "ludicrous speed". If a change to LLVM cannot be mapped
>> to the current API, the API is updated.
>>
>> +1 from me, with the additional "no changing existing functions'
>> signatures, replace with new function if necessary" rule.
>>
>> Perhaps you can make a patch to the DeveloperPolicy document actually
>> writing down your view on the Developer Policy for the C API? Then we never
>> have to debate it again, because it'll be written down for future
>> reference. And, reviewing that patch will give people one last opportunity
>> to object and/or bikeshed. :)
>>
>> James
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://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/20150915/24bd324e/attachment.html>