[llvm-dev] [RFC] Introduce an LLVM "Incubator" Process

Sun Jun 21 13:56:48 PDT 2020

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:24 PM Stellar Accident via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Thanks Chris. As the "former colleague" my +1 is a bit implied :)
>
> I took the liberty of drafting an actual proposal doc:
> https://github.com/stellaraccident/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0002-LLVMIncubator.md
>
> From a process perspective, I'm not entirely clear on the next steps here
> (and this is the first proposal after the proposal to have a proposal
> process -- so I guess we're dogfooding it). In my mind, even though there
> seems to be consensus on this RFC thread to move forward, this seems like a
> large enough change that we should commit a proposal to memorialize it (I
> imagine we're going to revise it over the years, and the history will be
> useful). Should I create a separate "PITCH" thread or just commit a version
> of the above proposal for further revision? I'm also happy to send it out
> for an actual review but have actually never made changes to the llvm-www
> repo and don't know how we review such things.
>

My understanding of the proposed process is that the proposal/PITCH process
is only happening on controversial RFCs:

> If it can be resolved through normal means, great - no need for
additional process. We expect this to continue to be the common case. If a
discussion turns controversial, escalate the RFC into a "proposal pitch",
to help frame both sides of the discussion.

The current RFC thread does not seem to have reached this point.

-- 
Mehdi

>
> Happy to do whatever to move this forward!
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:43 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today, we maintain a high bar for getting a new subproject into LLVM:
>> first a subproject has to be built far enough along to “prove its worth” to
>> be part of the LLVM monorepo (e.g. demonstrate community, etc).  Once
>> conceptually approved, it needs to follow all of the policies and practices
>> expected by an LLVM subproject.
>>
>> This is problematic for a couple reasons: it implicitly means that
>> projects have to start *somewhere else* but proactively decide to follow
>> LLVM design methodology and principles in the hope of being accepted.  It
>> is sometimes socially difficult to get these projects going because there
>> are many other forces that could encourage other practices.  For example, I
>> personally encountered this at Google with MLIR - “why aren’t you using
>> Google coding standards?”, several of us are currently discussing this in a
>> new skunkworks project in the “compilers for hardware” world, and the Flang
>> and other projects have found this challenging in the past.  Once the
>> project gets to a point of critical mass with the “wrong” approach, it is
>> very difficult and expensive to convert to the LLVM style, and from a
>> social perspective, inertia sometimes leads to forking off to separate
>> projects instead of folding back in to LLVM.
>>
>> A former colleague recently suggested the idea of introducing an
>> incubator process of some sort (e.g. xref the Apache version of this idea
>> <https://incubator.apache.org/>).  I think this is a really interesting
>> idea, and it is much easier now that the majority of the “official” code is
>> in the LLVM monorepo.
>>
>> Here is a sketch of how this could work:
>>
>>  - We maintain the same high bar to get into the LLVM monorepo, LLVM CI
>> etc.  No change here.
>>
>>  - We have a very light-weight proposal process that allows people to
>> create incubator projects in the LLVM organization, with no code up front.
>> The project would be required to have e.g. a charter document and README.
>>
>>  - Such projects are required to follow the LLVM developer policy, coding
>> standards, CoC, etc, but can define their own stability and evolution
>> process, code owners, etc.
>>
>>  - When the project is ready to graduate, it would follow the existing
>> process for becoming a first-class part of the mono repo.
>>
>>  - We have some policy on when to retire/delete projects, which can be
>> ironed out the first time it comes up (e.g. start with a nomination).
>>
>>  - We could even try to help encourage new projects to include a ‘mentor’
>> that has experience with the LLVM project to help nudge things in the right
>> direction and encourage proper development approach.
>>
>> What do you think?  Is anyone interested in helping to write up a more
>> detailed proposal?
>>
>> -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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200621/376af5b8/attachment-0001.html>