[llvm-dev] LLVM Incubator + new projects draft

Wed Jul 1 12:31:51 PDT 2020

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:22 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> One other thought, since it came up on the apple branch thread.
>
> I think we need to be very specific about the fact that code in an
> incubator has been contributed to LLVM.  I think this is implicit in the
> statements about license and policy, but having this be made explicit seems
> worthwhile.  This would, for instance, make it obvious that code could be
> moved between repository without further involvement of the original
> authors.
>
> Again, I think this is covered by the existing text, but leaving no room
> for ambiguity here seems worthwhile.  :)
>

+1 - This is actually a significant part of why I originally advocated for
this approach. The reality is that many of us have various hurdles and
ambiguities around collaborating with each other but are explicitly
allowed/encouraged to do so in the context of contributions to LLVM and
engaging in public as part of this community. Being explicit that a
contribution to an incubator project is a contribution to LLVM is a bright
line that is easy to point at (and hopefully understand). I'll leave the
opinion of whether it is fine to leave this implicit vs explicit to those
more knowledgeable about the vagaries of such things.

> Philip
> On 7/1/20 10:11 AM, Philip Reames wrote:
>
> This looks to be a reasonable starting point.
>
> A couple of nit picks, none are blockers.
>
>    1. I'd hold off on handing out the sub-domain for the moment.  This
>    feels more official than we probably want for a random incubator.  I
>    reserve the right to change my mind here, but maybe we should delay this
>    part until we see what actual incubators look like?  As an alternative,
>    maybe have a common incubator.llvm.org page which links to the docs
>    defining the process and lists all active incubators with links to docs in
>    their own repo?
>    2. The must/should terminology should probably be factored out once
>    and referenced.  As written, it takes a little effort to be sure the
>    definitions are the same between the two uses.
>    3. I'm not sure I agree with the no-code standard.  I agree with
>    minimal code, but I think an incubator should be established enough to be
>    discussed concretely (e.g. "what is" vs "ideals").
>    4. As I mentioned before, I'd advocate for the notion of a sponsor (an
>    existing LLVM contributor) for each incubator.  I'd have that a must on the
>    incubator list.
>
> Philip
> On 6/30/20 8:29 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Looks like a good proposal to me as-is! Thanks for putting this together
> to both of you :)
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:49 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hah, whoops, sorry about that.  This is the correct link:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Thomas Lively <tlively at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I'm also seeing an access denied error on the first link you shared, and
>> although I can access the second document, it doesn't look like the
>> document you meant to share. It looks like a one pager on ML in Swift.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:05 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world
>>> seems to be positively received.  I also noticed that we don’t really
>>> document the new project policy in general in the LLVM Developer Policy.
>>> To help with both of these Stella and I worked together to draft up a new
>>> section for the LLVM developer policy (incorporating the existing “New
>>> Targets” section).
>>>
>>> Ahead of proposing a Phabricator patch, we put it into this google doc,
>>> I’d love to get feedback on it from anyone who is interested in this:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit
>>>
>>> Currently it doesn't open, "You need access", sanity check: is viewing
>>> allowed for everybody?
>>>
>>>
>>> It says that “anyone on the internet is allowed to comment”, maybe this
>>> link will work better?:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lC7cOJ2Iiqdx62o81J5YP7RzFHi8k2Rkt0zla-Kh6no/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> In any case, if google docs isn’t cooperating, then you can check it out
>>> when it gets to Phabricator.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200701/74668d8d/attachment.html>