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>
On 29 July 2016 at 17:50, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:> While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague > "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts),I'm ok with that, too. Though, what do you think about the "2 months after all done"? Maybe "at least 2"? Giving a number makes people think less about the uncertainties, and be more accepting, I think.> 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.I know. And I think you guys are "at least 2 months with all bullets checked", which for me is the important bit. People that don't work on LLVM (or other large upstream projects) don't quite get the volume of changes and interactions that are needed. We just need to make sure communities that want to be part of LLVM show they understand. cheers, --renato
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> On 29 July 2016 at 17:50, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague > > "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts), > > I'm ok with that, too. > > Though, what do you think about the "2 months after all done"? Maybe > "at least 2"? > > Giving a number makes people think less about the uncertainties, and > be more accepting, I think. >I don't know what the right number should be, to be honest. 2-3 sounds better than 6, though, given the rate of change of the LLVM codebase. Eli> > > > 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. > > I know. And I think you guys are "at least 2 months with all bullets > checked", which for me is the important bit. > > People that don't work on LLVM (or other large upstream projects) > don't quite get the volume of changes and interactions that are > needed. > > We just need to make sure communities that want to be part of LLVM > show they understand. > > cheers, > --renato >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160729/9c2c018d/attachment.html>