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

[Jack Howarth]

Andrey,
     Also, note that when I say a single set of patches, I don't mean a
single patch but number individual patches submitted as a complete patch
set. After many years of carefully monitoring merges in FSF gcc (and
helping mitigate the breakage from them on the darwin targets since Apple
abandoned gcc), it has become clear that there are certain social pressures
in the review process that a unified patch set creates. When a complete set
of patches are submitted and say 90% of them are quickly reviewed, approved
and committed, this results in a social pressure for the remaining
reviewers to accelerate their work so as to not be seen as retarding the
merge.
           Jack



On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jack Howarth <
howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20140602/0a34fb02/attachment.html>