[llvm-dev] [RFC] AAP Backend

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 26 August 2016 at 17:45, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>> “Major corporation” does not mean size to me, I read it as “having a major involvement in the project”.
> 
> Still, you're rejecting new developers because they haven't
> contributed much before.

Can you quote exactly where *I*  *rejected* anything?


> But if their back-end is upstream, than they'll contribute code
> upstream for their changes on their back-end.
> 
> However, if we don't allow their back-end to be upstream, they won't
> contribute to the project.
> 
> Looks like a self-defeating argument, and one that still doesn't agree
> with the open source philosophy.
> 
> Not to mention that it's an argument that is not required by the
> policy in any way.

The policy you quote says *must be an active community behind the target”.
The question is *only* about this, so it seems right on point to me.


>> “the question is about who will use/develop/maintain this backend upstream in LLVM?"
> 
> They have answered that question. Ed and Simon will be the active
> maintainers. I imagine they have other developers around to help.
> I don't see *any* concern here, nor any violation of the policy. Like
> the Lanai back-end, the community is the maintainers. LGTM.

See above quote from the policy.


> 
>> "is there already an open-source community around this backend somewhere?"
> 
> This is not a requirement of the policy, nor was a requirement to any
> other back-end, so not a valid argument.

Asking a question is not an argument.


> 
> If we were to reject changes for not having an open source community
> elsewhere, we'd be chopping a very large parts of LLVM off.

I didn’t write that, and *I* didn’t ask any rejection. In short my only question is “what is the community around this”? (And I didn’t even start the question but found it interesting).

— 
Mehdi