[PATCH] D90761: [docs] Adding a Support Policy

[Christopher Tetreault via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ctetreau added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/SupportPolicy.rst:108
+ * Have a clear benefit for remaining in the main repository, catering to at
+   least one active sub-community (upstream or downstream).
+ * Be actively maintained by such sub-community and have its problems addressed
----------------
GMNGeoffrey wrote:
> ctetreau wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure what the best way to express this is, but I feel like things in the peripheral tier must have at least one active subcommunity upstream or at least two disjoint active subcommunities downstream.
> > 
> > I.E. "somebody uses it in upstream" or "two separate downstreams use it"
> How are we measuring *number* of communities? Wouldn't we always have one sub-community that is "the sub-community that cares about thing X"?
> How are we measuring *number* of communities? Wouldn't we always have one sub-community that is "the sub-community that cares about thing X"?

This would be largely honor-system. In the RFC, part of the justification would be spelling out who the multiple subcommunities are. With the bazel example, the original RFC states "we use it internally at google, but tensorflow also has a parallel version of this". In this case "llvm devs at google" and "llvm devs for the tensorflow project" are the 2 subcommunities. I would think that a representative from each subcommunity should respond to the RFC stating that they agree to be maintainers (or at least that they care about it). For the bazel example, Google has clearly stated interest. A Tensorflow maintainer should respond to the RFC stating that they do in fact care (I don't know if this has happened).

The idea here being: "If only one org is using this thing in their downstream, and nobody else wants it, why would the community accept it?"

I guess perhaps the "one subcommunity upstream" requirement is kind of pointless. If it's not being used by a core-tier component, then by definition it's only used by downstreams or out of tree users of llvm. And if it were being used by a core-tier component, then I would think it should also be core-tier.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90761/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90761