[llvm-dev] [RFC] Introduce an LLVM "Incubator" Process

[Stellar Accident via llvm-dev]

Thanks Chris. As the "former colleague" my +1 is a bit implied :)

I took the liberty of drafting an actual proposal doc:
https://github.com/stellaraccident/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0002-LLVMIncubator.md

>From a process perspective, I'm not entirely clear on the next steps here
(and this is the first proposal after the proposal to have a proposal
process -- so I guess we're dogfooding it). In my mind, even though there
seems to be consensus on this RFC thread to move forward, this seems like a
large enough change that we should commit a proposal to memorialize it (I
imagine we're going to revise it over the years, and the history will be
useful). Should I create a separate "PITCH" thread or just commit a version
of the above proposal for further revision? I'm also happy to send it out
for an actual review but have actually never made changes to the llvm-www
repo and don't know how we review such things.

Happy to do whatever to move this forward!

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:43 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Today, we maintain a high bar for getting a new subproject into LLVM:
> first a subproject has to be built far enough along to “prove its worth” to
> be part of the LLVM monorepo (e.g. demonstrate community, etc).  Once
> conceptually approved, it needs to follow all of the policies and practices
> expected by an LLVM subproject.
>
> This is problematic for a couple reasons: it implicitly means that
> projects have to start *somewhere else* but proactively decide to follow
> LLVM design methodology and principles in the hope of being accepted.  It
> is sometimes socially difficult to get these projects going because there
> are many other forces that could encourage other practices.  For example, I
> personally encountered this at Google with MLIR - “why aren’t you using
> Google coding standards?”, several of us are currently discussing this in a
> new skunkworks project in the “compilers for hardware” world, and the Flang
> and other projects have found this challenging in the past.  Once the
> project gets to a point of critical mass with the “wrong” approach, it is
> very difficult and expensive to convert to the LLVM style, and from a
> social perspective, inertia sometimes leads to forking off to separate
> projects instead of folding back in to LLVM.
>
> A former colleague recently suggested the idea of introducing an incubator
> process of some sort (e.g. xref the Apache version of this idea
> <https://incubator.apache.org/>).  I think this is a really interesting
> idea, and it is much easier now that the majority of the “official” code is
> in the LLVM monorepo.
>
> Here is a sketch of how this could work:
>
>  - We maintain the same high bar to get into the LLVM monorepo, LLVM CI
> etc.  No change here.
>
>  - We have a very light-weight proposal process that allows people to
> create incubator projects in the LLVM organization, with no code up front.
> The project would be required to have e.g. a charter document and README.
>
>  - Such projects are required to follow the LLVM developer policy, coding
> standards, CoC, etc, but can define their own stability and evolution
> process, code owners, etc.
>
>  - When the project is ready to graduate, it would follow the existing
> process for becoming a first-class part of the mono repo.
>
>  - We have some policy on when to retire/delete projects, which can be
> ironed out the first time it comes up (e.g. start with a nomination).
>
>  - We could even try to help encourage new projects to include a ‘mentor’
> that has experience with the LLVM project to help nudge things in the right
> direction and encourage proper development approach.
>
> What do you think?  Is anyone interested in helping to write up a more
> detailed proposal?
>
> -Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200621/3ede4e1f/attachment.html>