[llvm-dev] Updating LLVM Publications Page

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Oct 29, 2017, at 9:04 AM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/29/17 11:30 AM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 2017, at 4:45 PM, John Regehr via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Incidentally, despite what that page says, 2009 was not the peak of llvm-related-and-using publications.  It would be great for someone to do a survey of papers out there and get more papers listed on the page. It would be a great starter project for someone who was interested in contributing to llvm but is just getting started in compilers...
>>>> Agreed.  I have a student that might be interested.  I'll check and see.
>>> Yes, let's put more thought/work into this. We need to accept that only a tiny fraction of LLVM papers are going to get added by the paper's authors. Searching for LLVM in Google Scholar seems to work well, and I have a standing alert there to tell me about new LLVM papers.
>> We added the pubs page (and I force added news papers to it for a long time) because there wasn’t a good external thing to point to.  Would it make sense to “outsource” this to Google Scholar or some other service?
> 
> I'm inclined to keep the publications page and to recruit new people to help keep it updated.  I think the publications page can help highlight to mainline LLVM developers how their work is used by the research community.  The page also provides a centralized place for LLVM users to advertise their research work that builds upon LLVM. It's mere existence points out that research is important to us.
> 
> On a related note, it's not important to me that every paper in the world using LLVM is listed on the page.  What interests me more is having the page advertise the fact that LLVM is used in a wide variety of research projects, including communities that have not traditionally used compiler techniques, and that it show a strong LLVM presence in the research community.  If we can get back into the habit of keeping it updated, I think it'll be a nice feature of the web page.

Makes sense to me, completely agreed.

+1 John’s down-thread suggestion of allowing a few tags for major areas.  This could allow filtering on subject area and colorization.  Good luck defining the categories though :-)

-Chris