llvm dev - Jan 2016 - lld: ELF/COFF main() interface

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Rafael,
>
> This is an unreasonable and unacceptable escalation of this thread. You
have
> been dismissive, derailing, and taking out of context everything Chandler,
> and other long term active contributors have been asking and talking about.
> Your tone has been inflammatory and unhelpful in what is both a technical
> discussion and project discussion.
>
> Irrespective of anything else I believe you owe Chandler an apology.
/*
>From my peanut gallery perspective (I don't want to get involved here)
I'd disagree with your outlook.
*/
----------
I tend to be rude, not by design, but because I don't apply the same
filters which other (normal) people expect in a conversation. Over the
past __ years I've found the best (relatively speaking) projects are
the ones where people aren't hyper sensitive. I love Linus' commentary
from time to time and it just adds a bit of flavor. (I'm not saying
that' is or should be happening here)

If any apologies are due - can we keep this list technical and do it
offlist. Any adults who feel the necessity to "help out" in situations
like this, please do so more tactfully, by this I mean
privately/quietly. There's really nothing worse than getting
flogged/flawed/____ for something publicly when all you were trying to
do is achieve some technical goal.

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:59 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Rafael,
> >
> > This is an unreasonable and unacceptable escalation of this thread.
You
> have
> > been dismissive, derailing, and taking out of context everything
> Chandler,
> > and other long term active contributors have been asking and talking
> about.
> > Your tone has been inflammatory and unhelpful in what is both a
technical
> > discussion and project discussion.
> >
> > Irrespective of anything else I believe you owe Chandler an apology.
>
> /*
> From my peanut gallery perspective (I don't want to get involved here)
> I'd disagree with your outlook.
> */
> ----------
> I tend to be rude, not by design, but because I don't apply the same
> filters which other (normal) people expect in a conversation. Over the
> past __ years I've found the best (relatively speaking) projects are
> the ones where people aren't hyper sensitive.

Early results from research might not be on your side (research is not
conclusive yet, but it seems that as humans we do feel that less diverse
environments are better, when in reality they hold the group back):
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=team+diversity+productivity

I'm also pretty sure LLVM would be significantly worse off losing either
Rafael's or Chandler's contributions, both of whom are apparently not
immune to showing emotions in a technical discussion (I consider lashing
out and being hurt just different sides of the same coin of emotional
response).

> I love Linus' commentary
> from time to time and it just adds a bit of flavor. (I'm not saying
> that' is or should be happening here)
> If any apologies are due - can we keep this list technical and do it
> offlist. Any adults who feel the necessity to "help out" in
situations
> like this, please do so more tactfully, by this I mean
> privately/quietly. There's really nothing worse than getting
> flogged/flawed/____ for something publicly when all you were trying to
> do is achieve some technical goal.
>
Chandler did try to contact Rafael off-list to resolve this issue
person-to-person (I encouraged him because I also feel that's usually the
best way forward). Rafael declined and wanted to keep it public.

I, too, believe Rafael's comment was way over the line aggressive and
hurtful. The comment about the pass manager is a low blow that has no place
in a technical discussion. He did make Chandler feel like shit, and I
believe the right thing to do when you make somebody feel like shit is to
apologize.

After re-reading the thread, I also believe that Chandler could have worded
some of his replies better (for example, his comment on "Rafael introduced
error() function later and we now depends on that function does not
return." was "I think the last was a mistake"). If Rafael was
hurt /
offended by one of his technical decisions being outright called a mistake,
the right way is to raise this in a calm way - I'm sure Chandler would be
happy to apologize for his wording if this is the root cause for this
argument.

_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160123/bb43f5c1/attachment.html>

> After re-reading the thread, I also believe that Chandler could have worded
> some of his replies better (for example, his comment on "Rafael
introduced
> error() function later and we now depends on that function does not
return."
> was "I think the last was a mistake"). If Rafael was hurt /
offended by one
> of his technical decisions being outright called a mistake, the right way
is
> to raise this in a calm way - I'm sure Chandler would be happy to
apologize
> for his wording if this is the root cause for this argument.
I consider LLD to be the most important software I have worked in. I
was very much hurt by the suggestion that we were going in a opposite
direction from what was discussed. The discussion and decision on what
the current design is is what motivated me to join the project. The
original patch was already clearly not a library, so it was there for
everyone to see.

I was also very much hurt by the suggestion that it should not be part
of LLVM if it doesn't match Chandlers' preferences, regardless of  how
much code he has in it. If that is really the case this project
structure is now broken and I am going too.

So I stand that if anyone wants a library, it is up to that person to
figure out the API, design and send a patch.  It is also important to
provide real reason. "a fork in an entire build is too much" would
need a lot of data to justify.

A big part of the discussion about LLD occurred in a meeting with
Chandler present. The fact that that discussion faded out is the main
reason I think It is a bad idea to discuss in place without a log.

Cheers,
Rafael