[llvm-foundation] LLVM Infrastructure

[Tanya Lattner via llvm-foundation]

Sorry for the top post. I just didn’t want this email to seem like its being ignored.

I have a document I’m working on (well updating it) that describes the upgrade plan. We absolutely have to get off of llvm.org in the very short term. There are many software issues that make it harder to gather information about the performance of the machine. We also have to get off for security reasons. So we must move the existing infrastructure to the AWS machine that we have reserved for this purpose (which is allocated in the budget). This machine should be more than adequate for our needs, but more analysis should be done once we have moved. 

Now, you bring up a lot of good topics for discussion. My plan is not to change anything except the hardware/machine location.  I think everything you bring up is something that can/should be discussed going forward and get community input on. 

This mailing list is exactly the place to discuss what the plan is. Its not the place to have full flushed discussions about if we should use bugzilla or jenkins, etc. I don’t think that was necessarily your intention but it came across that way. 

Thanks,
Tanya


> On May 20, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-foundation <llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 20 May 2016 at 14:13, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the 2016 LLVM Foundation budget does have $4750
>> for AWS costs http://llvm.org/foundation/documents/other/2016-LLVMFoundation-Outlook-Budget.pdf
>> though it's not totally clear how much of the current infrastructure
>> that covers. Thanks to the Foundation for publishing that document,
>> it's a great move for transparency.
> 
> Indeed, it is. But not all can be covered in such a short document.
> For instance, it states:
> 
> "Last year, we moved the LLVM mailing lists to a new email server. We
> will finish up the infrastructure changes by moving all LLVM services.
> A full review will be done to address any outstanding infrastructure
> concerns from the community."
> 
> I'm just trying to have the "full review" somewhere public.
> 
> 
>> Chris, I think Renato was trying to engage in the process referred to
>> on page 2 of the budget and plans document. I know when I ask a small,
>> overworked team about something I'm tempted to put in a lot of detail
>> to be clear I'm interested in contributing to the process rather than
>> just hassling for a status update. I can't see in to Renato's mind,
>> but this sort of thinking may well motivate sections A-Z of Renato's
>> email :)
> 
> Spot-on. :)
> 
> 
>> It would be helpful to know how Foundation Board members see the split
>> between llvm-dev vs the llvm-foundation list working. My assumption
>> would be that dev-facing changes (e.g. a move to github or a change in
>> development process) make most sense on llvm-dev, while discussions of
>> one cloud vs another or whether a server is paid for or hosting is
>> donated by a company (i.e. how a service is provided) may make more
>> sense on llvm-foundation. Does that match your understanding?
> 
> +1.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-foundation mailing list
> llvm-foundation at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-foundation