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

[Geoffrey Martin-Noble via llvm-dev]

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)

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/20210128/d8eaa868/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/20210128/d8eaa868/attachment-0001.bin>