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

[Alp Toker]

On 02/06/2014 18:17, Andrey Bokhanko 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 
> <mailto: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?!


In this case we have had a review period spanning three days, with 
feedback from three developers including an *OpenMP expert* (and final 
review from technically the *top committer* on the LLVM openmp module 
given that the "code drop" commit was monolithic), following *three 
iterations* of the patch posted to the list for public scrutiny and 
amendments. This is unequivocally a *good thing*.

If you doubt that, take a look at the previous non-trivial commits and 
"code dumps" -- now tell me, which sounds like best practice between the 
two?


>
> Jack started his "On Improving the Build System revisited" thread on 
> May 30. This is four days ago, not weeks.

The plan to introduce the CMake build system originated months ago and 
the original code was written before then, but not signed off until last 
week.

This has been coordinated in full openness.

>
> 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?!

Reviews on cfe-commits frequently happen faster than the *15 minute* 
mailing list delay which causes commits to arrive before the patch 
proposal. Not always great but we deal with it. You are actually free to 
suggest and provide improvements after a change has landed.

>
> 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.

And we're trying to improve that workflow. Who wants to wait for *weeks* 
when we have qualified reviewers?

>     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

You asked about "Cmake generating gmake makefiles?" in that mail and the 
community has responded.

Also note that the one commit below is all we actually know about your 
work and your relation is to the project -- your mail was arrogant 
enough that I wouldn't have responded were it not for your association 
with Jim Cownie who we know and work with, and the unfortunate attitude 
towards people who have helped the project. Note that I've offered to 
give my own time to help Jim merge your CMake changes with the system in 
ToT because it's a nice thing to do.


$ git log --author=Andrey
commit c88ab54e0d3d89c97175d21d6af3466df5445eaa
Author: Andrey Churbanov <Andrey.Churbanov at intel.com>
Date:   Thu Oct 3 07:27:25 2013 +0000

     typo fixed as a test commit


Alp.


>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts