[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

[Keane, Erich via llvm-dev]

I’m concerned that by spending our limited-infrastructure-repair time on changing one of the tools that work reasonably well, we are not concentrating on what is actually important.  Our bug tracker is both disorganized and functionally-impossible to join.

Filing a bug into Bugzilla with the ‘temporary’ filtering of new users (mixed with an arduous and error-fraught system to get into it!) is multiple orders of magnitude less inclusive than a slightly-less-familiar review tool.  I’ve brought about a half-dozen junior devs (plus numerous larger ones!) into the LLVM development community, and none have had a problem with picking up Phab.

Filing a bug on the other hand…

From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Renato Golin via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 3:44 PM
To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org) <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>; LLDB Dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Code Review Process

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 23:16, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't think diversity necessarily relates to this aspect of managerial structure. Unless we're talking about the less benevolent dictatorships where the authority figures both provide structure, but also set some fairly negative tones for how people should relate. Those things aren't necessarily connected though, and I don't see signs that's the kind of leadership we have or are moving towards in the LLVM community.

Sorry, that's not at all what I meant.

LLVM attract all kinds of people, not just from different backgrounds and minorities, but also different cultures. And by culture I mean a lot of things.

We have different countries and continents; academia, enterprise and government; students, professionals, directors; enthusiasts or people just trying to make some money; open and closed source source projects; embedded into or built as a library or being used by a dependency. I myself have belonged to many of those groups over the years.

In my opinion, that variety in how we all use and rely on LLVM is key to its success, but it's also what makes it hard to drive larger changes that affect the least amount of people.

Even foundations and working groups can't be representative of all people and most of the time we don't even know who "the people" are until we try to change something and it breaks for them.

This is why long consensus "works" for us, because eventually by then, most people would have seen it and voiced their opinions. But it's slow and painful.

I personally prefer that pain, then the pain of seeing each new decision alienating a small, but substantial, part of the community, and making the project less and less palatable to new contributors from different cultures.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211008/f2db0c05/attachment.html>