[llvm-dev] RFC: Contributing Bazel BUILD files in the "peripheral" support tier

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:35 PM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:23 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:06 PM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:32 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Another spin to it: the point of working on the policy and putting it
> in place was also to help make sure that such proposals aren't
> automatically controversial to the point where we can't resolve them. If
> the policy does not help us here, that's quite a failure IMO.
> >>
> >> This proposal isn't controversial because of the policy.
> >>
> >> As a matter of historical record, this new policy was shoehorned into
> >> existence ex post facto, after the Bazel build system decision had
> >> already been made, and because some people - myself included -
> >> objected to the proposal. The policy doesn't address the potentially
> >> infinite proliferation of build systems and build system files in
> >> LLVM. Quite the opposite.
> >>
> >> And since you asked: my objections remain the same.  In my opinion,
> >> Bazel build system infrastructure files do not belong in the LLVM tree
> >> anymore than GN, or autoconf, or rpm specs, or Solaris pkg specs do.
> >
> >
> > So you oppose the policy itself, not this particular proposal alone?
> That's fine but that's an important clarification because there is nothing
> this proposal can do to address it, and the point of the policy is to be
> able to consider such proposal without blocking them with such an objection.
>
> No and No.
>
> Q: Do I oppose the policy?
> A: No, I don't.


Sorry I don't quite get what you mean here and it is quite confusing to me:
if you don't oppose the policy, that means you don't have an issue with it?


> As I have already stated, the policy was created after
> the fact. I am in opposition to the fact. The policy is secondary, and
> irrelevant, because its only purpose is to provide cover for the
> existing fact. If the fact didn't exist, the policy wouldn't be
> necessary.
>

I don't quite get how the policy is irrelevant.



>
> Q: Do I not oppose this particular proposal?
> (Warning: bumpy road ahead: double-negation.)
> A: No, I do not not oppose this particular proposal.
> Reduction: Yes, I object to this proposal, just like I objected a
> month and a half ago (or so).
>

Right, but you're also objecting to GN being in-tree if I understand
correctly (I'm not sure I understand you correctly though, since you just
wrote above you don't oppose the policy).

-- 
Mehdi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201204/15f62dca/attachment.html>