LLVMers, Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other projects. Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the traffic. What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and reach the right people? Thanks, Tanya
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> wrote:> LLVMers, > > Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM > development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other > projects. > > Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a > llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the > traffic. > > What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and > reach the right people?My minor view: I suspect that llvm-users doesn't make a lot of sense because there just aren't that many "pure" users of LLVM -- using LLVM involves some reasonable about of hacking. Not sure about the value of a mailing list other than 'llvmdev', although perhaps we should all work to reduce the noise level on llvmdev. I *do* think that projects which have much more direct user-facing aspects to them should have a user-facing mailing list. Clang seems the obvious example here, and I would expect 'clang-users' to be a useful list to maintain. (cfe-users may be consistent, but it's awful hard on new comers to find and remember...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120604/e08fa526/attachment.html>
I'd love to add my two pennies: As a user of LLVM (someone who prefers to look at LLVM as a black box with handles on it, which can be used to make it do stuff), I think it is a great idea to create a dedicated user's mailing list. There may not be a whole lot of users now, but down the road, as LLVM matures on Windows and people begin to open their eyes to the existence of LLVM, I bet lots and lots of wannabe language designers and embedded developers and you name it are going to ask all the "silly" questions that some of us have already summoned up enough courage to ask on the LLVMdev list. The dev list is great, but most of it is completely irrelevant to me as an end-user. On the other hand, if there was such a thing as an LLVMuser list, timid people like me perhaps dared ask some of all the questions that I have - that I do not want to bother the dev list with. Perhaps, just perhaps, I might one day be able to help out other LLVM newbies as I am myself gradually progressing through the rather painful development from "complete LLVM noob" to "advanced LLVM user" (the latter lies years in the future, I think). Personally, I'd love to see the LLVM developers group become used to the whole notion of LLVM as a black box component that 3rd party people might want to use WITHOUT smearing their hands and faces in the guttards of LLVM. I have chosen to use LLVM for my project because I neither have the time nor the skills to repeat the brilliant work that the LLVM developers group has already done. But my interest in code generation and optimizations can rest safely tucked away in a corner of a quarter. So, I say, go for it! Cheers, Mikael -- Love Thy Frog! 2012/6/5 Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> LLVMers, >> >> Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM >> development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other >> projects. >> >> Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a >> llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the >> traffic. >> >> What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and >> reach the right people? > > > My minor view: > > I suspect that llvm-users doesn't make a lot of sense because there just > aren't that many "pure" users of LLVM -- using LLVM involves some > reasonable about of hacking. Not sure about the value of a mailing list > other than 'llvmdev', although perhaps we should all work to reduce the > noise level on llvmdev. > > > I *do* think that projects which have much more direct user-facing aspects > to them should have a user-facing mailing list. Clang seems the obvious > example here, and I would expect 'clang-users' to be a useful list to > maintain. (cfe-users may be consistent, but it's awful hard on new comers > to find and remember...) > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120605/eec0b80b/attachment.html>
> Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM> development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other > projects. > > Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a > llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the traffic. > > What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and reach > the right people? > > Thanks, > TanyaHi Tonya, Yes please! The development information of LLVM is way over my head and I just want to use LLVM in one of my personal projects. It doesn't make sense to be subscribed to CFE, Dev, and Announce only to use a small fraction of the posts that hit my mailbox. I vote +1 on the idea of having a general-purpose usage mailing list just so I can drop off of the main developers' mailing list. --Sam Crow
Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> writes:> Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM > development related, there are many other mails related to clients or > other projects. > > Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a > llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the > traffic. > > What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic > and reach the right people?See how many threads about clang are started here, and clang has its own sub-website and mailing list. I don't think that an -users or -clients mailing list would have less misfires, quite the contrary, giving the difficulty of separating what's core-developing and what's client stuff for a modular, extensible API framework such as LLVM. And some users would post to -dev anyways because they would think that there is where the real experts are. Which would be almost correct, because some developers who usually help users on this ml would not subscribe to -users, or would not monitor it so frequently as -dev. Plus, IIRC on the past such -users ml was suggested and rejected by Chris on the grounds of not creating a wall separating developers and users (sorry if I'm misrepresenting something, it was lots of years ago). When you run an open source project where most users have the same profile as the developers, this makes so much sense that I think it is unnecessary to list those reasons. Finally, it seems that nowadays most development discussions happens elsewhere, either on llvm-commits, IRC on in-house. Maybe the net result of the split would be moving all current traffic from -dev to -users :-)
Tanya Lattner wrote:> LLVMers, > > Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other projects. > > Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the traffic. > > What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and reach the right people?My concern is that people who need help won't reach the developers who could help them. As such, I think the single-ML situation is best, but could be convinced otherwise. Nick
On 05/06/12 07:54, Nick Lewycky wrote:> Tanya Lattner wrote: >> LLVMers, >> >> Traffic on llvm-dev is quite high and while the majority of it is LLVM development related, there are many other mails related to clients or other projects. >> >> Having an llvm-users doesn't make any sense, but perhaps having a llvm-clients or llvm-general mailing list may help offload some of the traffic. >> >> What do people think? Any other suggestions to divide up the traffic and reach the right people? > > My concern is that people who need help won't reach the developers who > could help them. As such, I think the single-ML situation is best, but > could be convinced otherwise. >One option may be to make a llvm-users mailing list and subscribe the llvm-dev mailinglist to it. That way you create two levels of information: - Users that just want the high-level things can subscribe to the llvm-users list and ask their questions there - Developers will get to have their in-depth discussions on the old list and still get to see all the posts from the high-level list as well Cheers, Roel> Nick > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Jun 4, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:> Plus, IIRC on the past such -users ml was suggested and rejected by > Chris on the grounds of not creating a wall separating developers and > users (sorry if I'm misrepresenting something, it was lots of years > ago). When you run an open source project where most users have the same > profile as the developers, this makes so much sense that I think it is > unnecessary to list those reasons.FWIW, my opinion is basically: 1) it absolutely makes sense to have a cfe-users list, because there are tons of random "users of clang as a C compiler" that don't care about hacking on the compiler itself. 2) I don't see any utility in having an llvm-users list, because all "users" of llvm are compiler or other low level tools hackers, and llvmdev is the right list for that. That said, I suggested that Tanya ask on llvmdev to see if there was some other reasonable way to split up llvmdev. Just because I don't personally see it doesn't mean it can't exist :) -Chris