llvm dev - Jun 2016 - [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
>> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth"
<chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at
us.ibm.com>,
>> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:42:34 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
subproject for parallelism runtime and support
>> libraries
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>
>> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev"
>> >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
>> >> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler
Carruth"
>> >> <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli"
<cbertol at us.ibm.com>,
>> >> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at
gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 6:46:57 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing
an
>> >> LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support
>> >> libraries
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > ________________________________
>> >> >
>> >> > From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>
>> >> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> >> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev"
>> >> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
>> >> > <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
>> >> > "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at
gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli"
>> >> > <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, "Andrey
Bokhanko"
>> >> > <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 12:19:19 AM
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC:
Proposing an
>> >> > LLVM
>> >> > subproject for parallelism runtime and support libraries
>> >> >
>> >> > The thread has lost focus and cherry picking replies..
>> >> >
>> >> > To restate things since maybe you missed my points
>> >> > ----
>> >> > 1) SE is a programming model and needs a home of it's
own.
>> >> > Having a
>> >> > programming model with it's headers and all other
stuff glued
>> >> > into
>> >> > a runtime
>> >> > project which intends to be universal and PM agnostic
doesn't
>> >> > make
>> >> > sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > They'd start in separate subdirectories.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 1.1) The more I look, the most it seems SE is just a
step-child
>> >> > project and
>> >> > stuffing it in llvm while still not having any users or
strong
>> >> > backing
>> >> > doesn't make sense. We have enough PM already and my
gut feeling
>> >> > is
>> >> > this
>> >> > isn't going in a direction to bring in other
stakeholders.
>> >>
>> >> Point by point because I don't agree with what you write
below
>> >> entirely
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I think this is the core of my reply. OpenMP has a strong
user
>> >> > community,
>> >>
>> >> I'd agree here
>> >>
>> >> > but OpenMP 4 offloading is still young.
>> >>
>> >> ditto
>> >>
>> >> > OpenMP 4 offloading does not yet
>> >> > have a real user community
>> >>
>> >> agreement
>> >>
>> >> > yet because the first implementations just
>> >> > started shipping very recently.
>> >>
>> >> Partially strongly disagree - Maybe you meant on Power8?
>> >> Intel has had their support for OMP4 for quite some time. It
may
>> >> have
>> >> been buggy and focused on simd directive, but as best I can
tell
>> >> they
>> >> have worked quite hard to fix bugs and improve it.
>> >
>> > I meant across many platforms. Intel had preliminary support for
>> > OpenMP 4 offloading directives even before OpenMP 4 was
>> > standardized (in 2013). This did not include all of what ended up
>> > in the standard, and the offloading part of the standard needed to
>> > be fixed in a breaking way for OpenMP 4.1/4.5 regardless, so this
>> > is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> (Shameless self promotion) We have had some degree of OMP4
>> >> offloading
>> >> for like 1.5 years now.. It's mostly targeting the GPU and
x86,
>> >> but
>> >> also more recently working on Power8/AArch64.
>> >>
>> >> I'm quite certain these companies all have varying degrees
of OMP4
>> >> done: Cray, IBM, PGI
>> >
>> > Yes, many are working on implementations, and some have shipped.
>> > There's a list here: http://openmp.org/wp/openmp-compilers/ -
no
>> > one here really lists any OpenMP 4 offloading implementations
>> > before 2015. PGI does not currently list OpenMP 4 at all (although
>> > they've certainly done a lot of work on OpenACC).
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Furthermore, our implementation is certainly
>> >> > quite new, and OpenMP 4 offloading is really quite akin
to SE in
>> >> > that
>> >> > regard.
>> >>
>> >> Strongly disagree - Intel has been working with the LLVM
community
>> >> on
>> >> the parsing/sema and other parts of OMP4 for like a year or
more..
>> >> This has been a long and well vetted process backed back a
well
>> >> defined standard.
>> >
>> > Yes, both Intel and IBM have contributed significantly to Clang in
>> > this regard.
>> >
>> >> Compared to SE which is just some thing that popped
>> >> up out of nowhere and
>> >
>> > It popped up in TensorFlow, which itself popped up out of nowhere,
>> > but is already a popular open-source project for machine learning.
>> >
>> >> has a couple people from Google throwing their
>> >> weight around.
>> >
>> > Google is a trusted member of the LLVM community and a major
>> > contributor. So I agree with you in the following sense: When
>> > Google promises to update the code to follow LLVM's coding
>> > conventions and to manage its future development in accordance
>> > with our community norms, I believe them. I think they've
earned a
>> > place in the "trust but verify" category in this regard,
and I
>> > think this is a positive thing.
>> >
>>
>> yes, but not every project that is started is finished and who would
>> be the maintainer if the person leaves Google?
>
> Good question, although I'm under the impression that there are
multiple developers.
>
>> I still don't see why
>> they can't fork it on github or create a project to let it bake and
>> get some users or traction.
>
> I think they could, but... SE has users, even if they're just inside of
Google currently, and some of the relevant code is in a newly-popular
open-source project (TensorFlow), and so I infer a certain amount of experience
in SE's development team. Will my users want to use SE? I have no idea. I do
care about OpenMP's offloading model because I'm certain I'll have
users who care deeply about it within a couple of years. So regarding my
optimistic attitude you describe below, I'm interested here is getting
another set of eyes on the OpenMP offloading implementation, some sharing of
expertise, voicing of alternate viewpoints, etc. -- hopefully, in the end, this
will benefit both projects. That might influence, for the better, future
versions of OpenMP. It might also end up providing a model that better serves
(perhaps though another abstraction) my C++-based users for which OpenMP
currently does not work well. None of this might happen, but it definitely
won't happen unless we push for it. I don't think we get any of these
other benefits it they just stick the code on github and develop it on their
own. If they're willing to do this as part of the LLVM community, I think we
should take advantage of that.
>
>> >> > I view them both as experimental projects, and both have
strong
>> >> > backing with significant investment, so I expect both to
mature
>> >> > over time.
>> >>
>> >> I'd agree both are experimental and probably need some
work. I'd
>> >> strongly disagree the amount of investment of both projects is
>> >> equal.
>> >> Again - OMP4 may have zero real world users, but there's a
lot of
>> >> stubborn people trying to make it work. Compared to SE which
the
>> >> people involved have yet to even answer basic things - like
what's
>> >> the
>> >> future of SE and how to contribute to it.
>> >
>> > They might not know what the future is. They have code that is
>> > useful to them, and they feel would be useful to others.
There's
>> > strong potential for compiler integration in the future, but it is
>> > just a library now. They've talked about extending it to cover
>> > different backends (OpenCL, etc.), and investigating
>> > host-based-task dependencies, etc. My impression is that, in
>> > general, they'd like the code's users, present and future,
to
>> > shape its future. All of this seems perfectly healthy. If it
>> > becomes part of LLVM, how to contribute to it will become clear.
>>
>> I love your optimistic attitude, but the reality is that successful
>> programming models take a significant amount of work. I'm well
aware
>> that they can handle at least part of that, but so far I'm not sure
>> who else will invest in it..
>>
>> The industry has : CUDA, OpenCL, OpenMP4, OpenACC, C++AMP, Parallel
>> STL(??), some research projects from DOE and dead stuff like HMPP...
>> Are all these so broken that they can't be fixed to fill the same
>> necessity as SE?
>
> You're right. SE is certainly different from all of these, higher-level
than some and lower-level than others. And, of course, I'm reminded of this:
https://xkcd.com/927/
>
>>
>> How similar is it to the failed AMD Stream Computing (sorry AMD)
>> http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele408/StreamGPU.pdf
>>
>> Intel's work had to live and grow outside for quite a while -
Google
>> may have more good karma,
>
> What they have is a potentially-valuable contribution to our project. For
me, this is about the strategic health of parts of the project I care about. I
have reasons (that I have not been subtle about), that I think there are
potential benefits to having both SE and libompoffload together in some sense.
>
> To be clear, I am an optimist. I think that different groups can
collaborate, or at least share technical discussions, and mutually improve their
work. It does not always happen, but we can encourage it by creating an
environment in which it is more likely to occur.
Sorry, but the interaction so far doesn't leave me warm and fuzzy.. I
see them wanting to push their code as-is instead of working more
closely with OMP and Intel.

Nothing stops them from reviewing the OpenMP implementation stuff
today. Since you're friends with them - maybe ask them to help out
there. If they had a strong interest in this area, I suspect that
would have already happened.
>From what you're saying above.. it seems like SE won't succeed
unless
it becomes a project? If that's the case then maybe it should die...
You have to be _____ this tall to go on the ride..

All the positive interactions and feedback shouldn't be exclusive with
SE being a project. Tying them together doesn't seem like the right
approach.

It seems like "I want it MY way or I won't play"...

How about we revisit this in a month? If in 1 month other codes are
using SE we can discuss the benefits...

----- Original Message -----
> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth"
<chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at
us.ibm.com>,
> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:53:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an LLVM
subproject for parallelism runtime and support
> libraries
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"cfe-dev"
> >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
> >> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler Carruth"
> >> <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli"
<cbertol at us.ibm.com>,
> >> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:42:34 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Proposing an
> >> LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support
> >> libraries
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>
> >> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> >> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev"
> >> >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"
> >> >> <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Chandler
Carruth"
> >> >> <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Carlo
Bertolli" <cbertol at us.ibm.com>,
> >> >> "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at
gmail.com>
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 6:46:57 AM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC:
Proposing
> >> >> an
> >> >> LLVM subproject for parallelism runtime and support
> >> >> libraries
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ________________________________
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at
pathscale.com>
> >> >> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at
anl.gov>
> >> >> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev"
> >> >> > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
"openmp-dev"
> >> >> > <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
> >> >> > "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at
gmail.com>, "Carlo Bertolli"
> >> >> > <cbertol at us.ibm.com>, "Andrey
Bokhanko"
> >> >> > <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 12:19:19 AM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC:
Proposing
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > LLVM
> >> >> > subproject for parallelism runtime and support
libraries
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The thread has lost focus and cherry picking
replies..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To restate things since maybe you missed my points
> >> >> > ----
> >> >> > 1) SE is a programming model and needs a home of
it's own.
> >> >> > Having a
> >> >> > programming model with it's headers and all
other stuff glued
> >> >> > into
> >> >> > a runtime
> >> >> > project which intends to be universal and PM
agnostic doesn't
> >> >> > make
> >> >> > sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They'd start in separate subdirectories.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1.1) The more I look, the most it seems SE is just a
> >> >> > step-child
> >> >> > project and
> >> >> > stuffing it in llvm while still not having any users
or
> >> >> > strong
> >> >> > backing
> >> >> > doesn't make sense. We have enough PM already
and my gut
> >> >> > feeling
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > isn't going in a direction to bring in other
stakeholders.
> >> >>
> >> >> Point by point because I don't agree with what you
write below
> >> >> entirely
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think this is the core of my reply. OpenMP has a
strong
> >> >> > user
> >> >> > community,
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd agree here
> >> >>
> >> >> > but OpenMP 4 offloading is still young.
> >> >>
> >> >> ditto
> >> >>
> >> >> > OpenMP 4 offloading does not yet
> >> >> > have a real user community
> >> >>
> >> >> agreement
> >> >>
> >> >> > yet because the first implementations just
> >> >> > started shipping very recently.
> >> >>
> >> >> Partially strongly disagree - Maybe you meant on Power8?
> >> >> Intel has had their support for OMP4 for quite some time.
It
> >> >> may
> >> >> have
> >> >> been buggy and focused on simd directive, but as best I
can
> >> >> tell
> >> >> they
> >> >> have worked quite hard to fix bugs and improve it.
> >> >
> >> > I meant across many platforms. Intel had preliminary support
for
> >> > OpenMP 4 offloading directives even before OpenMP 4 was
> >> > standardized (in 2013). This did not include all of what
ended
> >> > up
> >> > in the standard, and the offloading part of the standard
needed
> >> > to
> >> > be fixed in a breaking way for OpenMP 4.1/4.5 regardless, so
> >> > this
> >> > is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> (Shameless self promotion) We have had some degree of
OMP4
> >> >> offloading
> >> >> for like 1.5 years now.. It's mostly targeting the
GPU and x86,
> >> >> but
> >> >> also more recently working on Power8/AArch64.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm quite certain these companies all have varying
degrees of
> >> >> OMP4
> >> >> done: Cray, IBM, PGI
> >> >
> >> > Yes, many are working on implementations, and some have
shipped.
> >> > There's a list here:
http://openmp.org/wp/openmp-compilers/ - no
> >> > one here really lists any OpenMP 4 offloading implementations
> >> > before 2015. PGI does not currently list OpenMP 4 at all
> >> > (although
> >> > they've certainly done a lot of work on OpenACC).
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Furthermore, our implementation is certainly
> >> >> > quite new, and OpenMP 4 offloading is really quite
akin to SE
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > regard.
> >> >>
> >> >> Strongly disagree - Intel has been working with the LLVM
> >> >> community
> >> >> on
> >> >> the parsing/sema and other parts of OMP4 for like a year
or
> >> >> more..
> >> >> This has been a long and well vetted process backed back
a well
> >> >> defined standard.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, both Intel and IBM have contributed significantly to
Clang
> >> > in
> >> > this regard.
> >> >
> >> >> Compared to SE which is just some thing that popped
> >> >> up out of nowhere and
> >> >
> >> > It popped up in TensorFlow, which itself popped up out of
> >> > nowhere,
> >> > but is already a popular open-source project for machine
> >> > learning.
> >> >
> >> >> has a couple people from Google throwing their
> >> >> weight around.
> >> >
> >> > Google is a trusted member of the LLVM community and a major
> >> > contributor. So I agree with you in the following sense: When
> >> > Google promises to update the code to follow LLVM's
coding
> >> > conventions and to manage its future development in
accordance
> >> > with our community norms, I believe them. I think they've
earned
> >> > a
> >> > place in the "trust but verify" category in this
regard, and I
> >> > think this is a positive thing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> yes, but not every project that is started is finished and who
> >> would
> >> be the maintainer if the person leaves Google?
> >
> > Good question, although I'm under the impression that there are
> > multiple developers.
> >
> >> I still don't see why
> >> they can't fork it on github or create a project to let it
bake
> >> and
> >> get some users or traction.
> >
> > I think they could, but... SE has users, even if they're just
> > inside of Google currently, and some of the relevant code is in a
> > newly-popular open-source project (TensorFlow), and so I infer a
> > certain amount of experience in SE's development team. Will my
> > users want to use SE? I have no idea. I do care about OpenMP's
> > offloading model because I'm certain I'll have users who care
> > deeply about it within a couple of years. So regarding my
> > optimistic attitude you describe below, I'm interested here is
> > getting another set of eyes on the OpenMP offloading
> > implementation, some sharing of expertise, voicing of alternate
> > viewpoints, etc. -- hopefully, in the end, this will benefit both
> > projects. That might influence, for the better, future versions of
> > OpenMP. It might also end up providing a model that better serves
> > (perhaps though another abstraction) my C++-based users for which
> > OpenMP currently does not work well. None of this might happen,
> > but it definitely won't happen unless we push for it. I don't
> > think we get any of these other benefits it they just stick the
> > code on github and develop it on their own. If they're willing to
> > do this as part of the LLVM community, I think we should take
> > advantage of that.
> >
> >> >> > I view them both as experimental projects, and both
have
> >> >> > strong
> >> >> > backing with significant investment, so I expect
both to
> >> >> > mature
> >> >> > over time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd agree both are experimental and probably need
some work.
> >> >> I'd
> >> >> strongly disagree the amount of investment of both
projects is
> >> >> equal.
> >> >> Again - OMP4 may have zero real world users, but
there's a lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> stubborn people trying to make it work. Compared to SE
which
> >> >> the
> >> >> people involved have yet to even answer basic things -
like
> >> >> what's
> >> >> the
> >> >> future of SE and how to contribute to it.
> >> >
> >> > They might not know what the future is. They have code that
is
> >> > useful to them, and they feel would be useful to others.
There's
> >> > strong potential for compiler integration in the future, but
it
> >> > is
> >> > just a library now. They've talked about extending it to
cover
> >> > different backends (OpenCL, etc.), and investigating
> >> > host-based-task dependencies, etc. My impression is that, in
> >> > general, they'd like the code's users, present and
future, to
> >> > shape its future. All of this seems perfectly healthy. If it
> >> > becomes part of LLVM, how to contribute to it will become
clear.
> >>
> >> I love your optimistic attitude, but the reality is that
> >> successful
> >> programming models take a significant amount of work. I'm well
> >> aware
> >> that they can handle at least part of that, but so far I'm not
> >> sure
> >> who else will invest in it..
> >>
> >> The industry has : CUDA, OpenCL, OpenMP4, OpenACC, C++AMP,
> >> Parallel
> >> STL(??), some research projects from DOE and dead stuff like
> >> HMPP...
> >> Are all these so broken that they can't be fixed to fill the
same
> >> necessity as SE?
> >
> > You're right. SE is certainly different from all of these,
> > higher-level than some and lower-level than others. And, of
> > course, I'm reminded of this: https://xkcd.com/927/
> >
> >>
> >> How similar is it to the failed AMD Stream Computing (sorry AMD)
> >> http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele408/StreamGPU.pdf
> >>
> >> Intel's work had to live and grow outside for quite a while -
> >> Google
> >> may have more good karma,
> >
> > What they have is a potentially-valuable contribution to our
> > project. For me, this is about the strategic health of parts of
> > the project I care about. I have reasons (that I have not been
> > subtle about), that I think there are potential benefits to having
> > both SE and libompoffload together in some sense.
> >
> > To be clear, I am an optimist. I think that different groups can
> > collaborate, or at least share technical discussions, and mutually
> > improve their work. It does not always happen, but we can
> > encourage it by creating an environment in which it is more likely
> > to occur.
> 
> Sorry, but the interaction so far doesn't leave me warm and fuzzy.. 
Clearly ;)
>I
> see them wanting to push their code as-is instead of working more
> closely with OMP and Intel.
> 
> Nothing stops them from reviewing the OpenMP implementation stuff
> today. Since you're friends with them - maybe ask them to help out
> there.
To be clear, I don't currently know the SE developers personally.
> If they had a strong interest in this area, I suspect that
> would have already happened.
I agree. I don't think they necessarily have a strong interest. I think the
question here is what the communities's strategic interests are. SE's
developers came to us with a proposal, and we can certainly make our
expectations clear. That might include help reviewing the OpenMP
offloading-library implementation.
 
> From what you're saying above.. it seems like SE won't succeed
unless
> it becomes a project? If that's the case then maybe it should die...
> You have to be _____ this tall to go on the ride..
Again, this is a decision the LLVM community needs to make based on its own
cost/benefit analysis. We often don't start new projects with mature code --
in fact, doing that is an unusual case.
> 
> All the positive interactions and feedback shouldn't be exclusive
> with
> SE being a project. Tying them together doesn't seem like the right
> approach.
> 
> It seems like "I want it MY way or I won't play"...
Perhaps a fundamental difference in our opinions here comes from the fact that
I've not read the interaction in this way.

Thanks again,
Hal
 
> How about we revisit this in a month? If in 1 month other codes are
> using SE we can discuss the benefits...
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

> Again, this is a decision the LLVM community needs to make based on its own
cost/benefit analysis. We often don't start new projects with mature code --
in fact, doing that is an unusual case.
I can't speak for every new project, but the ones I've followed
closely (OMP hell) I can say that not a single piece of code was
accepted without a fight and that it was meant to be production grade
on every commit. It lived and lives partially outside the llvm tree
still as a result of this.. This is a great thing in many regards, but
now it's a double edged sword.

I have said this before and I'll say it again.. I wish the llvm
project would take a long hard look at how the Apache foundation
handles projects. They have an incubator process which clearly defines
the whole applications to acceptance process. Nothing like that exists
around here and the result we get is long email threads where it's all
just opinions without any tangible reference or SOP.

I'm not sure the Apache foundation has a height requirement but most
of the projects applying to join have at least some traction and are
usually small communities trying to join a bigger one.. Not next to
nothing and just trying to bootstrap..