[llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 26 July 2016 at 20:07, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> I think there are different kinds of inflexibility. We will use our collective professional judgment. There are some large-scale design changes that we might decide can happen over time. Whatever we decide to accept, however, needs to be in good shape for what it is and follow our coding conventions.

Absolutely. There is a large range of solutions, and we have been most
successful on the ones we picked over the years. I think we should
continue with the trend.

What (I think) I have proposed is nothing different than what we've
been doing (ie. I'm not trying to change the status quo).

So, if that's not what's coming out, my wording is wrong, please
advise. If it is, than I don't think we should argue *now*.

I just want to encode what is, and then, once we have something in,
working and actively helping people add their targets, we can discuss
(in separate) the merits of our current policies.

Maybe I should have said that from the beginning. Oh well, hind sight and all.

--renato