[llvm-dev] Contributing Bazel BUILD files similar to gn

[Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev]

I think this argument is the slippery slope in action. Just because we allowed the gn build system to be added previously, does not mean that we should allow a new build system now. And forbidding this build system now does not mean that we must kick gn out of the repo.

We should accept or reject Bazel on its merits alone, and not based on historical precedent.

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 4:11 PM
To: Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com<mailto:rengolin at gmail.com>>
Cc: Mehdi Amini <aminim at google.com<mailto:aminim at google.com>>; LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>; Stella Laurenzo <laurenzo at google.com<mailto:laurenzo at google.com>>; Tres Popp <tpopp at google.com<mailto:tpopp at google.com>>; Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com<mailto:gcmn at google.com>>; Thomas Joerg <tjoerg at google.com<mailto:tjoerg at google.com>>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Contributing Bazel BUILD files similar to gn



On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:49 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 19:16, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
I /believe/ the idea is that, like gn, there are folks maintaining these build systems out of tree anyway - and having them in tree makes it easier to coordinate that effort, with the express intent of not burdening the general community with their upkeep (like gn currently - the idea is that there's no burden on developers to update gn build files (& consequently bazel build files)).

Perhaps the initial assumption about my concerns weren't well articulated.

I get that those files would be "additional" and other developers won't need to care much about them.

But what happens when people join the project with experience in Bazel and, instead of building pure LLVM with CMake, they start using Bazel for everything, just because they're used to it?

Didn't the community already go through this exact discussion when gn was added?  Let me ask a different question.  If gn support was permitted, on what grounds should we refuse a different parallel build system?  Either we should allow people to contribute build systems upstream that they wish to maintain, or we should keep every buidl system other than CMake out of the tree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201029/9ea26a40/attachment-0001.html>