[cfe-dev] "clang.org"

[Chris Lattner]

On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
> Answering your questions in order..

Rearranging responses to suit my purposes :-)

> Perhaps it was the 500KB patch I posted earlier in the day gave people
> the impression this was about a fork or something? If you took a minute
> to look at my patch review / commit history / posts to the list you
> could easily have counted that out.

No, it wasn’t related at all.  I really am glad you’re pushing forward on making the headers better library use, that was purely an engineering discussion about tradeoffs of approach.  Thank you again for pushing forward on this.

> This was always just a spot to upload clang-related patches, and
> recently also a build of the installer. The build is aiming to resolve
> some release blockers before 3.5 branches next week.
> 
> The frontpage on clang.org changed during the devmeeting to mark C++14
> completion, adding balloons and linking back to the C++ status page on
> clang.llvm.org but that's about it. All the links go back to llvm.org as
> far as I'm aware.

Aha!  I hadn’t seen it before the other thread so I wasn’t aware of its history.  I’m sorry for the strong response, the possibility of “marketing forks” of open source projects are a touchy subject :-)

I’m *thrilled* that you’re running this site in good faith.

> I've already had mails from a tech journalist about a "clang fork", an
> offer to buy the domain for the price of an apartment by an interested
> organisation and somebody who wants to run a download site(?) there,
> none of which sound too appealing to be honest and a huge distraction
> from fixing the PRs at this point.

Right, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was worried about.  It’s a very prominent domain, so if someone wanted to start a fork and mislead people into thinking that it was the official release, they could cause a lot of confusion.  Again, I’m really pleased that this isn’t your goal :-)

> Anyway, to answer the question I'm happy to have this used for official
> LLVM  content, and that was somewhat the reason this was bought off
> squatters when we first started to ship our clang-based product at
> Nuanti as a service to the community. The previous owner's site with
> porn ads was a serious branding problem for us.
> 
> As you can probably see from the front page, I'm not the one to ask for
> suggestions on creative ideas for llvm.org ;-)

Cool.  It’s really unclear to me which is better: for clang’s front door to be clang.org or clang.llvm.org.  Clang is a large enough subproject of llvm that the former is probably better.  If that’s the direction that we want to go, we should make clang.llvm.org redirect to clang.org, and have it be the canonical domain name for the project.

> Incidentally, is there a less contentious 'official' place LLVM
> contributors can upload patches/builds like an FTP?

I’m not sure what you mean - do you mean ones tied to the official releases or something else?

-Chris