On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> I'm not hung up on the fixed number of months. I don't even think it's the > best idea, but I was expecting people to give their own ideas... :-) > > But saying "as soon as they are ready" may be hard to assess. And writing > it specific for the Lanai back end would not be appropriate. > > I'm open to ideas... Please share! :-) >Well, It's easy to criticize, but much harder to create new ideas... So I specialize in former. :-) I have only two suggestions: 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no earlier than Sep 28th. 2) Downgrade the wording from "must have" to "suggested" and add something like "can be transformed to official status earlier if there is enough support from LLVM maintainers". We can even formalize what "enough support" means -- say, at least three maintainers employed by other companies LGTMed this. Yours, Andrey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160729/3500a1d5/attachment.html>
On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote:> 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no earlier > than Sep 28th.I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy after the Lanai back-end started the process... And making Lanai official just before the policy goes public would be cheeky. :)> 2) Downgrade the wording from "must have" to "suggested" and add something > like "can be transformed to official status earlier if there is enough > support from LLVM maintainers". We can even formalize what "enough support" > means -- say, at least three maintainers employed by other companies LGTMed > this.A bit too specific, but I think we can make this work... I'll try again. cheers, --renato
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: > > 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no > earlier > > than Sep 28th. > > I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy > after the Lanai back-end started the process... > > And making Lanai official just before the policy goes public would be > cheeky. :) >While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts), FWIW we (Lanai maintainers) don't particularly mind to wait until Sep 28 if that's deemed important by the community. There's no rush, and we don't request any special-casing here. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160729/47295f77/attachment.html>