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

[Andrey Bokhanko]

Hi David,

> 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

I did mention this:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2014-May/037218.html

Also, I explicitly asked to have code reviewed by Jim before committing
Jack's patch:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-June/000146.html.
Unfortunately, this was ignored.

Re-making build system without even letting project's architect to do code
review is simply... wrong, don't you think so?

Yours,
Andrey



On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20140602/cb09ce34/attachment.html>