[Openmp-dev] [PATCH] [Revisedx2] Initial cmake support

[Jack Howarth]

Alp,
   Its obvious we have started off on the wrong foot here. Please lets not
fixate on any objections that you had to my initial posts and try to have a
productive interaction here. As far as I know, everyone here has the same
goal of seeing clang-omp/openmp land in an llvm release as soon as
feasible. I am just relating what I have observed of the social dynamics of
the review process from over on FSF gcc. While it is a different system, it
still is the same sort of pool of varied personalities with the same random
conflicts (as by testified by how poorly we have hit it off).
        Jack


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:

>
> On 02/06/2014 18:17, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
>
>> Alp,
>>
>> With all respect, a few of assertions you made are simply *not true*.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com <mailto:
>> alp at nuanti.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     It should be made clear that the current OpenMP runtime CMake
>>     build system has been in development for some time, including
>>     on-list discussions in the LLVM community that go back weeks
>>     following all the best practices we have. The only thing that
>>     changed is that C. Bergstrom graciously provided the sign-off we
>>     needed to integrate Jack's work late last week.
>>
>>
>> What "discussions... that go back weeks" you are speaking about?!
>>
>
>
> In this case we have had a review period spanning three days, with
> feedback from three developers including an *OpenMP expert* (and final
> review from technically the *top committer* on the LLVM openmp module given
> that the "code drop" commit was monolithic), following *three iterations*
> of the patch posted to the list for public scrutiny and amendments. This is
> unequivocally a *good thing*.
>
> If you doubt that, take a look at the previous non-trivial commits and
> "code dumps" -- now tell me, which sounds like best practice between the
> two?
>
>
>
>
>> Jack started his "On Improving the Build System revisited" thread on May
>> 30. This is four days ago, not weeks.
>>
>
> The plan to introduce the CMake build system originated months ago and the
> original code was written before then, but not signed off until last week.
>
> This has been coordinated in full openness.
>
>
>
>> And since when "all the best practices" include introducing a new build
>> system without getting project architect's consent? -- especially after
>> explicitly asked to do so, a message that you conveniently ignored.
>>
>>     So it's a mischaracterisation to say this happened over the
>>     weekend. Even if it did that would be on the long side compared to
>>     timescales seen on llvm-commits.
>>
>>
>> What timescales you are speaking about?!
>>
>
> Reviews on cfe-commits frequently happen faster than the *15 minute*
> mailing list delay which causes commits to arrive before the patch
> proposal. Not always great but we deal with it. You are actually free to
> suggest and provide improvements after a change has landed.
>
>
>
>> For reference, we wait for *weeks* for our OpenMP in clang patches to be
>> reviewed! And we commit them *only* after explicit consent of one of clang
>> code owners -- even if we already got code review from someone else.
>>
>
> And we're trying to improve that workflow. Who wants to wait for *weeks*
> when we have qualified reviewers?
>
>
>      In general it's a good idea to participate in on-list discussions
>>     and give a heads up if you see people discussing features you have
>>     plans for. Is there anything else in the pipeline?
>>
>>
>> That's *exactly* what we did back in March.
>>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/openmp-dev/2014-March/000055.html
>>
>
> You asked about "Cmake generating gmake makefiles?" in that mail and the
> community has responded.
>
> Also note that the one commit below is all we actually know about your
> work and your relation is to the project -- your mail was arrogant enough
> that I wouldn't have responded were it not for your association with Jim
> Cownie who we know and work with, and the unfortunate attitude towards
> people who have helped the project. Note that I've offered to give my own
> time to help Jim merge your CMake changes with the system in ToT because
> it's a nice thing to do.
>
>
> $ git log --author=Andrey
> commit c88ab54e0d3d89c97175d21d6af3466df5445eaa
> Author: Andrey Churbanov <Andrey.Churbanov at intel.com>
> Date:   Thu Oct 3 07:27:25 2013 +0000
>
>     typo fixed as a test commit
>
>
> Alp.
>
>
>
>> Yours,
>> Andrey
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.nuanti.com
> the browser experts
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openmp-dev mailing list
> Openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/openmp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-dev/attachments/20140602/417d2f60/attachment.html>