<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I think this argument is the slippery slope in action. Just because we allowed the gn build system to be added previously, does not mean that we should allow a new build system now. And forbidding this build system now does not mean that
we must kick gn out of the repo.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We should accept or reject Bazel on its merits alone, and not based on historical precedent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Zachary Turner via llvm-dev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 29, 2020 4:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:rengolin@gmail.com">rengolin@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mehdi Amini <<a href="mailto:aminim@google.com">aminim@google.com</a>>; LLVM Dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>; Stella Laurenzo <<a href="mailto:laurenzo@google.com">laurenzo@google.com</a>>; Tres Popp <<a href="mailto:tpopp@google.com">tpopp@google.com</a>>;
Geoffrey Martin-Noble <<a href="mailto:gcmn@google.com">gcmn@google.com</a>>; Thomas Joerg <<a href="mailto:tjoerg@google.com">tjoerg@google.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Contributing Bazel BUILD files similar to gn<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:49 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 19:16, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" target="_blank">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I /believe/ the idea is that, like gn, there are folks maintaining these build systems out of tree anyway - and having them in tree makes it easier to coordinate that effort, with the express intent of not burdening the general community
with their upkeep (like gn currently - the idea is that there's no burden on developers to update gn build files (& consequently bazel build files)).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps the initial assumption about my concerns weren't well articulated. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I get that those files would be "additional" and other developers won't need to care much about them. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">But what happens when people join the project with experience in Bazel and, instead of building pure LLVM with CMake, they start using Bazel for everything, just because they're used to it?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Didn't the community already go through this exact discussion when gn was added? Let me ask a different question. If gn support was permitted, on what grounds should we refuse a different parallel build system? Either we should allow
people to contribute build systems upstream that they wish to maintain, or we should keep every buidl system other than CMake out of the tree. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>