[cfe-dev] "clang.org"

[Sean Silva]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Answering your questions in order..
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ;-)
>
> On the other hand, there have been some really interesting suggestions
> coming in (VCS for experimental branches, a diagnostics wiki for clang,
> user-friendly distribution of clang and more) so I'll be handing off to
> another LLVM developer in the community who knows better how to set that
> up whether it's on llvm.org, clang.org or some combination.
>
> Incidentally, is there a less contentious 'official' place LLVM
> contributors can upload patches/builds like an FTP?
>

Generally, we don't do that. Sort of like how we don't do branches either;
there's "one true mainline". We do have some "hosted binaries", e.g. <
http://llvm.org/apt/>, <http://llvm.org/builds/> but AFAIK those are
strictly derived from trunk, and I don't think that it would be appropriate
to host custom patched builds (I think the philosophy is basically "if the
patch is worth applying, then it will be in trunk soon"). There's also <
http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/> which is sort of different... I don't know
all the details but what is hosted there is sort of "productized" and IIRC
last I heard Apple actually has customers which depend on that URL so as a
matter of practicality that's where it lives.

Actually I'm really curious about the "users" that clang.org serves, and I
think it would be useful to take those use cases to heart and improve the
normal releases correspondingly. E.g. you mentioned somewhere else that the
download on clang.org is code signed? is that something that users would
appreciate and that we should integrate into our regular release process?.
You also mentioned some stuff like a GUI AST viewer, and nodejs bindings?
Are users really digging those? I think those last two would be great to
move closer to upstream regardless.

Also I just wanted to mention Alp, that you've been doing a great job
interacting with the community and our development process (incremental
development, tests, code review, etc.). (well, this strange
clang.orgscenario aside (although in the end I'm glad that domain is
in "friendly
hands" and not a squatter or porn ads!))

-- Sean Silva


> Alp.
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 06:36, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
> >> Hello Devin,
> >>
> >> We're producing a Windows version of clang at http://clang.org
> > Hi Alp,
> >
> > Can you elaborate on why you made this page?
> >
> > Do you think that the content on clang.llvm.org should be improved?  If
> so, we'd be happy to take patches.
> >
> > Do you think that clang.llvm.org is a poor url?  If so, would you be
> willing to make clang.org simply redirect to clang.llvm.org?
> >
> > I obviously can't tell you what domains you are allowed to register, but
> this page is problematic for the community.  It is effectively making an
> unofficial "fork" of the clang branding.  If you'd like to continue running
> it as a site divorced from clang.llvm.org, I'd request that you make it
> *very* clear that it is not the official Clang web site.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Chris
>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131112/c995280e/attachment.html>