llvm dev - Jul 2016 - Target Acceptance Policy

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>

On 29 July 2016 at 18:01, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com>
wrote:
> 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.
Good, that's the current version:

 5. The target must have been stable in the tree and have addressed
every other minimum requirement for at least 2-3 months. This cool down
period is to make sure that the back-end and the target community can
endure continuous upstream development for the foreseeable future.

cheers,
--renato

This looks good for me. Thank you for addressing this!

Yours,
Andrey


On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 29 July 2016 at 18:01, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Good, that's the current version:
>
>  5. The target must have been stable in the tree and have addressed
> every other minimum requirement for at least 2-3 months. This cool down
> period is to make sure that the back-end and the target community can
> endure continuous upstream development for the foreseeable future.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160729/4f3e1e00/attachment.html>