[llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 27 July 2016 at 16:25, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> 5. The target must have been in the tree for at least 6 months, with
> active contributions including: adding more tests conforming to the
> documents, fixing bugs reported by unrelated/generic changes,
> providing support to other members of the community.

Trying to re-write based on Andrey's response:

5. The target must have been stable in the tree and have addressed
every other minimum requirement for at least 2 months. This cool down
period is to make sure that the back-end and the target community can
endure continuous upstream development for the foreseeable future.

I think that's better than 6 months because it makes it explicit what
is the need for this (cool down period, demonstration of stability),
which I personally think it's a very important one and we shouldn't
get away with it.

It also changes from "landing in tree" to "having addressed all
points", so if the back-end lands in tree already fully conforming,
there's no point in waiting another 4 months just because.

Does that look better?

Also, "having addressed the minimum requirements" may end up being
subjective, but I think we should keep it that way on purpose. I don't
want to have to come up with a "committee of target approval" or
anything like that. We're doing well as we do.

cheers,
--renato