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

[Jack Howarth]

Andrey,
    Reading through the the thread at
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140519/106158.html,
I can understand the sensitivities here on the topic of reviews. IMHO, the
process of integrating clang-omp and openmp into the standard
llvm/compiler-rt/clang build would go much smoother if the merge of
clang-omp changes were sent up stream as a cohesive set of patches to merge
the branch like FSF gcc does. I know this will set the hair on edge for
some of the llvm developers, but when a merge is submitted as a single set
of patches, the upstream developers are forced to take the review process
far more seriously. Especially, if the reviews are coming in slowly,
submitting these patches upstream in a piecemeal approach will only
aggravate the problem of timely reviews.
            Jack


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Alp,
>
> With all respect, a few of assertions you made are simply *not true*.
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>
>> It should be made clear that the current OpenMP runtime CMake build
>> system has been in development for some time, including on-list discussions
>> in the LLVM community that go back weeks following all the best practices
>> we have. The only thing that changed is that C. Bergstrom graciously
>> provided the sign-off we needed to integrate Jack's work late last week.
>>
>
> What "discussions... that go back weeks" you are speaking about?!
>
> Jack started his "On Improving the Build System revisited" thread on May
> 30. This is four days ago, not weeks.
>
> And since when "all the best practices" include introducing a new build
> system without getting project architect's consent? -- especially after
> explicitly asked to do so, a message that you conveniently ignored.
>
>
>> So it's a mischaracterisation to say this happened over the weekend. Even
>> if it did that would be on the long side compared to timescales seen on
>> llvm-commits.
>
>
> What timescales you are speaking about?!
>
> For reference, we wait for *weeks* for our OpenMP in clang patches to be
> reviewed! And we commit them *only* after explicit consent of one of clang
> code owners -- even if we already got code review from someone else.
>
>
>> In general it's a good idea to participate in on-list discussions and
>> give a heads up if you see people discussing features you have plans for.
>> Is there anything else in the pipeline?
>
>
> That's *exactly* what we did back in March.
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-March/000055.html
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140602/9b0660d2/attachment.html>