<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Philip,</p>
<p>This statement "The current policy is "downstream is on their
own"." appears to have gotten out of hand.</p>
<p>LLVM for this thread is a production line, a pipeline, a team
operation. Of course each person in the team has their own
responsibility but there is never a team member who is on their
own. There is never a position on the production line that does
not depend on all the other positions in order to keep the
production line running. At some point all the members depend on
and are responsible for all the other members and for the success
of the team.</p>
<p>This is not policy. It is merely a fact of life for this kind of
organization.<br>
</p>
<p>Neil Nelson<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/20 12:07 PM, Philip Reames via
llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:71afee99-d94b-5366-b126-66857d5dcc88@philipreames.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Eric,</p>
<p>I disagree. Strongly. I see the very fact we're engaging in
the discussion of "just being polite" here as normalizing a
proposed change in policy which has potentially profound
negative consequences for the project long term. I do not want
upstream developers "trying to be polite" if that delays
otherwise worthwhile work. The current policy is "downstream is
on their own". There was nothing even remotely unreasonable
done in the patch series which triggered this discussion and I
don't want any upstream contributor coming to believe there was.</p>
<p>Again, I'm open to carefully weighted proposals to change
current policy. I also have a downstream repo which is kept up
to date and I understand the pain point being raised. I just
want to be very careful to distinguish between existing status,
and any proposed changes. I want the proposed changes to be
carefully weighed before being put into effect. <br>
</p>
<p>Philip</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/20 4:39 PM, Eric Christopher
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALehDX5CFkFORr5HMS43LZ0wQ+SiqgoQSJ=OhZ6OfOu7CbaOTw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://reviews.llvm.org/rG549b436beb4129854e729a3e1398f03429149691</a><br>
>> - <a
href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rGa55daa146166353236aa528546397226bee9363b"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://reviews.llvm.org/rGa55daa146166353236aa528546397226bee9363b</a><br>
>> - <a
href="https://reviews.llvm.org/rG0bc77a0f0d1606520c7ad0ea72c434661786a956"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>