[llvm-dev] LLVM Releases: Upstream vs. Downstream / Distros

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On 12 May 2016 at 17:07, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> In my talks with a number of these projects, they pretty much don't care
> what anyone else does, and plan to stick to their own import/etc schedules
> no matter what LLVM does with stable releases :)

Is there anything we can do to make they care?

What I heard from them is that the upstream process wasn't clear
enough with regards to fixes, API stability and process (which were
pretty much echoed in this thread).

Maybe, if we fix most of those problems, they would care more?



> (For reference, Google *ships* the equivalent of about 13-16 linux
> distributions in products, uses about 5-6x that internally, and we have a
> single monolithic source repository for the most part.  I have the joy of
> owning the third party software policies/etc for it, and so  end up
> responsible for trying to deal with maintaining single versions of llvm for
> tens to hundreds of packages).

You sound like the perfect guy to describe a better upstream policy to
please more users.

But I don't want to volunteer yourself. :)

--renato