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

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 05:48, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> No. I meant every word that I said. The policy encoded existing practice
> and exactly how we've handled things for years. I'm sorry if this hasn't
> matched your experiences, as I said, but there's nothing new or radical
> with what we wrote down. It's what we've intended and how we've meant to
> act.
>

Precisely.

I'm not taking personally the statement that "[the policy's] only purpose
is to provide cover for the existing fact". I have no reason to provide
cover for Bazel, Geoffrey or Google. I didn't mean to create precedent for
anything and just wanted to make sure we discuss the technical details with
the background of how we decide things covered in a policy that would only
describe what we've done in the past.

I also don't think the inclusion of GN is prior-art. It had a lot less
scrutiny than the current discussion and it has been largely ignored
(because nothing wrong happened so far). There are lots of little things
like that in LLVM that go unnoticed, it's really hard to control such a
large project without adding unreasonable constraints to the development
process.

It's exactly because this discussion is again moving into personal remarks
and making use of "facts" and policies that I'm sure this won't go
anywhere, again. And this is why I support Tom's idea to turn this into a
pitch: there are no personal opinions on the document, just facts and
solutions to problems.

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201205/1cdbea79/attachment.html>