<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:39 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Philip,<div><br></div><div>While it's true we don't I think Valentin is reasonable in saying "hey, when people do this let's try to combine them if it makes sense". It's just being polite to everyone, especially if it doesn't risk the patches or upstream stability. I don't think there's a policy change being proposed, just a "hey, let's see what we can do in the future".</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think the somewhat unspoken change in LLVM social conventions (& somewhat policy, I think it's written down in some places) is the "keep patches as small as practically possible" - grouping unrelated renamings would be something I'd usually (without concern for downstream consumers) push back against for all the usual reasons: easier to review, easier to revert strategically if something goes wrong, etc.<br><br>What I'm not clear on is why one big rename patch is easier for a downstream consumer than two smaller renames - I haven't fully understood the nature of this particular downstream consumer's approach makes this interesting.<br><br>- Dave<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>-eric</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:05 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Valentin,</p>
<p>You are proposing to change existing policy. Current policy is
that we don't consider downstream *at all*. Your proposal may
seem reasonable - it may even *be* reasonable - but it is
definitely a change from historical practice and must be
considered as such. <br>
</p>
<p>Philip<br>
</p>
<div>On 2/18/20 3:03 PM, Valentin Churavy
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">I don't think anyone is arguing to change
longstanding policy. From a downstream perspective many small
renaming changes do increase overhead for us.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">One thing that happens to downstream projects is
that they support more than one LLVM version, we (JuliaLang)
currently try to support latest stable + master.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So for me the question is more, are renaming
changes worth downstream projects not being able to test and
provide feedback to upstream? One way of mitigating that is
to consciously schedule them just before a release and do them
all in short succession.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-V</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 17:00
Philip Reames via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">As others
have said, our long standing policy has been that downstream <br>
projects must fend for themselves. We're certainly not going
to reverse <br>
that policy without careful discussion of the tradeoffs.<br>
<br>
I'm personally of the opinion that there could be a middle
ground which <br>
allows upstream to move quickly while reducing headache for
downstream <br>
projects. Given I wear both hats, I know I'd certainly
appreciate such <br>
a state. However, it's important to state that such decisions
would <br>
need to be carefully considered and would require some very
careful <br>
drafting of proposal to balance the competing interests at
hand.<br>
<br>
If anyone is curious, I'm happy to share some ideas offline on
what <br>
starting points might be, but I have neither the time nor the
interest <br>
to drive such a conversion on list.<br>
<br>
Philip<br>
<br>
On 2/18/20 1:37 AM, Ties Stuij via llvm-dev wrote:<br>
> During that variable renaming debate, there was a
discussion about discussion about doing things all at once,
piecemeal or not at all. An issue that wasn't really resolved
I think. I had the impression that the efforts fizzled out a
bit, and I thought this renaming was maybe related to that,
but I'm neutral on if we should do variable renaming.<br>
><br>
> All I'm asking as a kindness if we could be kind on poor
downstream maintainers not on the issue of variable renaming
at large, but on the micro level of not pushing 5/6 patches of
this kind covering closely related functionality in two days
but collating them in 1. I don't think that would slow down
development, and I wanted to highlight the issue, as people
might not be aware that they could save some pain in a simple
way. Especially if indeed there is going to be a big renaming
push and this would be a continuous thing.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> /Ties<br>
><br>
> ________________________________________<br>
> From: Michael Kruse <<a href="mailto:llvmdev@meinersbur.de" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">llvmdev@meinersbur.de</a>><br>
> Sent: 17 February 2020 21:16<br>
> To: Ties Stuij<br>
> Cc: llvm-dev<br>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] amount of camelCase refactoring
causing some downstream overhead<br>
><br>
> My understanding is that LLVM's general policy is to not
let<br>
> downstream slow down upstream development. The C++ API
explicitly<br>
> unstable.<br>
><br>
> Note that we are even considering renaming variables
globally:<br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/134921.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/134921.html</a><br>
><br>
> Michael<br>
><br>
> Am Mo., 17. Feb. 2020 um 06:04 Uhr schrieb Ties Stuij via
llvm-dev<br>
> <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>:<br>
>> Hi there,<br>
>><br>
>> At the end of last week we saw a number of commits go
in that were camelCasing batches of MCStreamer::Emit* and
AsmPrinter::Emit* functions.<br>
>><br>
>> For example:<br>
>> - <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rG549b436beb4129854e729a3e1398f03429149691" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rG549b436beb4129854e729a3e1398f03429149691</a><br>
>> - <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGa55daa146166353236aa528546397226bee9363b" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGa55daa146166353236aa528546397226bee9363b</a><br>
>> - <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rG0bc77a0f0d1606520c7ad0ea72c434661786a956" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/rG0bc77a0f0d1606520c7ad0ea72c434661786a956</a><br>
>><br>
>> Unfortunately all these individual commits trigger
the same merge conflicts over and over again with our
downstream repo, which takes us some manual intervention every
time.<br>
>><br>
>> I understand uniformity is a nice to have, but:<br>
>> 1 - is it worth it to do this work right now? I can
remember the casing debate a few months back, which seems
unrelated to this work which seems manual, but I'm unsure of
the outcome.<br>
>> 2 - If this work should be done, it would be nice if
all of the work is done in one batch, to save us some of the
downstream overhead.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks<br>
>> /Ties<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>