[Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

[Cownie, James H]

OK, sorry, my tone may have been wrong here.

I am absolutely glad to have people contributing, and certainly don't want to put people off. 
(ISTR that I bought Alp at least one beer when we met in London :-)).


-- Jim

James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
Tel: +44 117 9071438


-----Original Message-----
From: David Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at cam.ac.uk] 
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Cownie, James H
Cc: Alp Toker; Jack Howarth; openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; "C. Bergström"
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

Hi Jim,

I think there are a few things seriously wrong here.

On 2 Jun 2014, at 10:50, Cownie, James H <james.h.cownie at intel.com> wrote:

> * You are moving too fast; all of this has been done since noon on 
> Friday here in the UK,  and I was out on Friday afternoon and do not 
> work at weekends. I have therefore had no chance to  look at it before 
> it was checked in. (And I'm supposed to be a key reviewer and 
> architect here...)
> 
> * A change like this (which provides a whole new build system) requires more than one review.

In open source, incremental changes are usually preferred.  Adding a new (not-yet-default) built system in response to community need is a good thing, even if it is not perfect.  

> * Since everyone complained so much, we have been working on a CMAKE 
> based build system here at Intel  that we hope to push this week, 
> which *does* support Windows, icc, gcc, clang etc

That is simply not how open source development works.  If you have a private fork that has extensive changes and someone commits something that makes merging them difficult then that is *your problem*, not that of the wider community.  This is the fundamental basis of open source development: stuff in the public repository is canonical.

Developing code in private and then doing big code drops is *not* a good way of interacting with the community.  With my hat on as a representative of an operating system that ships clang as the default compiler and would like to see OpenMP work out of the box, I've been following this list and I was not aware that this is something that you were working on.  

Discussions about incorporating a CMake build system date back to 3 March on this list, and I did not find any posts from anyone at Intel indicating that you guys were working on it until your post from today.  Indeed, I identified lack of a functional build system as one of the key blockers to portability in my first email to this list.

> So, at the point when I commit that, I'm going to remove these changes.

I trust that your changes will undergo external review?

David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.