[llvm-dev] LLVM Incubator + new projects draft

Wed Jul 1 14:12:31 PDT 2020


> On Jul 1, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> 
> This looks to be a reasonable starting point.
> 
> A couple of nit picks, none are blockers.
> 
> 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?
Sounds great, I’m happy to take this out - this avoids “promising” it, but we can still discuss it on a case-by-case basis.  I changed this to "Other infrastructure integration can be discussed on a case-by-case basis.”, because there are bug tracker and other things as well.
> 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.
I’m not sure what you mean here.  Do you have a recommended approach?
> 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").
I hear what you’re saying, but I think we can handle this as part of the approval process.  We can bounce of things that qualitatively don’t feel credible and give guidance there, but can still be receptive if something seems like a promising direction.
> 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.
Yes, this is a good idea.  The problem here is “how do we decide who qualifies as a sponsor?”.  I don’t know a good way to say that - someone with N years of LLVM experience, M patches, …?  How does this get explained?

-Chris

> 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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <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/20200701/248016f4/attachment.html>