[lld] r271569 - Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:

> On 2 June 2016 at 23:22, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Because the patch includes way too much and doesn't explain what it is
> doing.
>
> So let me get this straight: someone publishes a patch, you don't like
> it, you do some private investigations and commit whatever you want
> without even notifying the original authors?
>
> I don't know how you work at your company, but this is not how open
> source development works.
>
> This is not the first time either that you step over people's toes
> with your "design decisions" that you don't share with anyone. Last
> year, Adhemerval has worked for three months to get the LLD AArch64
> back-end working and out of the blue, no warning, the whole back-end
> was yanked.
>
> It doesn't matter if it was the right decision or not in the long
> term, we don't just yank things, especially not before some
> deliberation on the list. See how long is taking for the new pass
> manager to be enabled, or FastIsel or the new Selection, or the new
> register allocators, etc.
>
> That's not how open source works and I assumed you knew that.
>
>
> > That is a general problem with aarch64, the documentation is missing
> > and comments have to make due. I had a lot of work to rewrite the
> > original aarch64 patches to be in line with the rest of lld and I
> > didn't want to have to do the same for tls.
>
> You shouldn't be rewriting *any* patch, but asking the original
> authors to do that themselves.
>
> There is a pattern that I'm seeing and that's that *you* refuse or
> dismiss more patches than most other people. There are many of your
> comments on reviews that are just personal, and then you step over
> people's toes and commits yourself.
>
> This does not scale. But more importantly, it puts into doubt the
> validity of the tool you're so hardly defending.
>
> You see, 3 years ago, I was asked to choose between MCLinker and LLD.
> MCLinker was a linker for all purposes, but Chris Lattner convinced me
> that LLD is the LLVM linker, and we should be focusing all efforts
> there.
>
> It goes against the commercial interests of Linaro members to choose
> such a premature technology, and it did put them back years of
> development, because MCLinker was very close to ready, and MediaTek,
> despite what people said, was very willing to accept our help.
>
> But in the interest of the community, and the open source nature of my
> work, I have decided to pursue LLD and managed to convince Linaro to
> put two people working on it. But now, I'm re-evaluating all my
> strategy, and sincerely, I do not trust the LLD community anymore.
>

Not so fast to conclude that the community is not trustworthy, it doesn't
consist of a single person or a single action. I do appreciate all
developers who contribute to the project and want to foster the cooperative
environment. As to the technical point, I honestly don't fully understand
the particular patches in every detail, and since Rafael rewrote that part
of code recently, I trust him that he is the most knowledgeable person who
can make a best technical decision.

Being said that, for this particular instance, I wouldn't submit right away
but send it to review and explain why I think better. I'm totally fine if
someone who knows more than me write a better patch than mine as a result
of code review for my patch, but I would be surprised if an alternative is
just submitted. I'm not sure if this needs to be reverted, but at least,
could you send it review next time in a similar situation, Rafael?

> The delay was because of the above mentioned issues. I wanted to make
> > sure there was a solid foundation.
>
> Some patches are quick to review, others take 6 months. If you work in
> open source you have *got* to understand that. If you're not willing
> to take that cost, than please, refrain from working open source.
>
>
> > Sorry, no.
>
> I understand your position, but you have to understand mine. I
> therefore call into question your ability to care about such an
> important project of the LLVM community.
>
> I sincerely believe that your actions are harming the project, and the
> people trying to help. I appreciate the value of your contribution, I
> really do, but if you don't change your way to handle open source
> contributions, LLD will, whether you like it or not, become irrelevant
> and be replaced.
>
> Such is the nature of open source.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160602/e272af1f/attachment.html>