[llvm-dev] [PITCH]: Allow Unsupported Build Configurations in the LLVM Monorepo

Mon Feb 1 10:34:52 PST 2021

Thanks Chris! There was actually one point I was hoping you would comment
on directly, which is the guidelines for selecting review managers. The
process doc says to pick 2 or 4, which I assume is so that it's an odd
number once we include you. Currently it's 5 + you, so I think we need to
remove someone. It also wasn't clear to me whether the author should or
should not be a review manager. You were for the first proposal, but that
was understandably an exception.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 5:52 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:

> On Jan 28, 2021, at 4:35 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Chris (Lattner), mentioned this on the review thread, but we're
> waiting on you to take a look at the pitch (step 4 of the process)
>
>
> Hey Geoffrey, sorry for the delay.  I sometimes run behind on llvm-dev
> because I batch process it periodically - if you need my attention, plz
> email me directly.  In this case, I saw the phab patch but didn’t realize
> it was intended to be a pitch.  I’ll take a look now, thank you for the
> ping!!
>
> Ah I believe you were in the "to" of the original email and the "cc" of
that last one. You're saying I should've promoted you back to "to" here? Or
sent a separate email that didn't include llvm-dev?

> -Chris
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:58 PM Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, hearing no objections and given that folks have already started
>> commenting on the phab patch, let's concentrate discussion there.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:45 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This all sounds reasonable to me. I think having a phab review for the
>>> text of the proposal makes sense. This allows people to suggest changes
>>> inline.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Geoffrey
>>> Martin-Noble via llvm-dev
>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2021 2:15 PM
>>> *To:* LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Eric Christopher <
>>> echristo at google.com>; Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>; Tom Stellard
>>> <tstellar at redhat.com>; Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com>;
>>> chris.bieneman at me.com
>>> *Subject:* [EXT] [llvm-dev] [PITCH]: Allow Unsupported Build
>>> Configurations in the LLVM Monorepo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that most folks are back from the holidays, I'm starting a proposal
>>> pitch, as part of the LLVM Proposal Process
>>> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/master/proposals/LP0001-LLVMDecisionMaking.md>,
>>> for allowing unsupported build configurations in the LLVM monorepo. This is
>>> a followup to past <https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/>
>>> discussion <https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/HJbDaP-lvV0>. The
>>> motivating example is Bazel, but since the controversy was around the
>>> inclusion of unsupported build systems in-tree in general, this proposal
>>> addresses that issue in a general sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, some procedural points: since this is basically the first time
>>> the new pitch process is being used, I don't have a lot of examples to draw
>>> on. Chris's initial proposal for this process itself is the only example
>>> and I think it was unsurprisingly unusual given that the process it was
>>> following did not yet exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Discussion format: I'm not sure where the best place to discuss the text
>>> of the proposal is. Given that the intended final artifact is a checked in
>>> markdown file in llvm-www, I started this as a Phab patch (
>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D94451). Personally, I think that
>>> concentrating the discussion on Phab and basically conducting it as a
>>> review would be the most fruitful for this phase of the discussion. My
>>> understanding is that the goal at this point is not necessarily to involve
>>> the widest section of the community possible, but rather to produce a
>>> formal proposal with which to do so, so the wide visibility of the dev list
>>> seems less important here except for this initial email that points
>>> interested parties to the right place. For that reason, I've held off on
>>> including the text of the proposal in this email. I could instead paste it
>>> here and we can discuss it, with me porting updates to the patch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Review managers: The proposal guidelines say to pick 2 or 4 reviewer
>>> managers, I assume so that it's an odd number once adding Chris. I've
>>> proposed 6 potential review managers and will explain my rationale for
>>> each, but I think we should probably drop some so we have at most 4 + Chris.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Geoffrey Martin-Noble: me, the author of this proposal. It was not
>>> clear to me whether the author must, should, or should not be one of the
>>> review managers. I'm happy to either do this or not. I have been the one
>>> driving this proposal, so it makes some sense. On the other hand, I'm a
>>> relatively new member of the LLVM community without as much context on its
>>> mores, history and decision making processes.
>>>
>>> - Chris Lattner: This is the first usage of the new process, so it might
>>> make some sense to have some additional steering. Chris will be part of the
>>> final decision regardless, so whether he's formally a review manager is
>>> maybe less important.
>>>
>>> - Tom Stellard: Was actively involved in the previous discussions and
>>> stated some concerns and objections, pushing for the use of the proposal
>>> process. As release manager, can speak to how the proposal might affect
>>> releases.
>>>
>>> - Renato Golin: Was actively involved in the previous discussions and
>>> stated some concerns. Authored the new LLVM Support Policy
>>> <http://llvm.org/docs/SupportPolicy.html>, which is part of this
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> - Eric Christopher: Was actively involved in some of the past
>>> discussions. Previous build LLVM build system maintainer.
>>>
>>> - Chris Bieneman: Previous LLVM build system maintainer. Was not
>>> actively involved in past discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, all of these suggestions are dependent on the person in
>>> question agreeing to act as review manager.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again the actual proposal is in this patch (
>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D94451), but let's settle the discussion
>>> format first (which hopefully will be easy) so we don't end up with a
>>> fragmented discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Geoffrey
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210201/756e30be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3992 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210201/756e30be/attachment-0001.bin>