[llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jul 26 10:28:39 PDT 2016
On 26 July 2016 at 17:50, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> No, the problem is that your writing is making an exception to the developer policy, and I don’t think it is a good thing.
I think requiring such a high bar from start is not a good community
I want to help other people to understand and follow our guidelines,
and the best place to do this, is to have an experimental stage, where
the back-end is in tree but not officially built. This gives them time
to address all comments with our help. We want targets as much as they
want to be in LLVM. It's a cooperation and acting inflexibly won't
Also, if we put all the blockages in the first stop, what's the point
of being experimental in the first place?
> There is no edge cases in question here.
Chandler has found a number of edge cases on my original (more strict)
writing. This is a revised text, and by all means, will have cases
that we didn't foresee.
> I have a totally different opinion: they submit a patch, we request changes, and if they don’t the code never gets in tree in the first place.
I hear, loud and clear. I also understand the reasons. I just don't
share your opinion that this is valid in *every* case.
We usually reserved strong policies for critical problems (legal,
license, patents, copyright), and less strict ones for more common
sense kind of things. May not be perfect, but it's a balance.
More information about the llvm-dev