[llvm-dev] Policy on support tiers

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

Hi Chris,

Before I start to reply inline, your editor is doing something funky and
it's breaking the threading on GMail. I'm not sure other clients have the
same problem, but it seems other people are finding the same issue. Can you
check what's going wrong?

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 19:48, Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote:

>   I think talk of committing the Bazel build system to the repo should be
> tabled until we can ratify this policy, and then it should be re-proposed
> in terms of how it fits in with this policy. If Bazel is accepted into the
> repository in conformance with an existing policy that can be enforced, my
> misgivings would be lessened.
>

With the warning about what this means (to wait), I agree and that's my
intent. To discuss this now and then the introduction of Bazel files will
become trivial.

We've done the same for new back-ends, sub-projects, incubator projects,
etc. It's so much easier that way.


> > *** Tier 1: the core compiler, which *must* work at all times.
>
>
>
> I would suggest: that it **must** have a subcommunity that cares about it
>

Good point. And they are responsible for maintaining it, like existing
policies on code.



> > Sub-communities that care about it *must* fix issues in them, but the
> rest of the community has no obligations to support it. Lack of maintenance
> *could* be subject to removal.
>
>
>
> I would suggest: that lack of maintenance **will** be cause for removal.
> Perhaps a timetable should be stated? (“if it’s red for more than 1 month,
> it is subject to removal?”)
>

Right, the "could" here is to sound weaker than tier 3. Weaker not in that
it may not remove and let it rot, but in that we'll need more rot before we
remove.

I agree the idea is "will" with a different time frame / necessary effort.


It sounds to me like the basic difference between tier 2 and 3 is that tier
> 2 needs to have a (quiet) build bot, and tier 3 does not need a build bot?
> If so, we should state the requirement for a public build bot under tier 2.
>

Not exactly. In another response I tried to make the difference explicit: 2
interacts with code (use it, build it, is used by it) while 3 is
accessories (scripts, config files, etc). The need for silent buildbots is
a consequence of that, not the main difference.

It's not clear we need that difference, and if not, I'm happy to drop it.

But I wanted to express: "3 can't break 2 can't break 1", and make it
easier to drop silly scripts or config files if they're no longer valid or
maintained, more easily than dropping entire build systems.

cheers,
--renato

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201031/ed186df3/attachment.html>