On 26 August 2016 at 16:58, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:> This was addressed in Alex’s email: " In the past, the only exception I can think of is the Lanai backend, but in that case we have a strong commitment of multiple employees at a major corporation committed to that target's maintenance.”.So, are we picking features based on company size, now? That doesn't make much sense in an open source project... The current policy states: "There must be an active community behind the target. This community will help maintain the target by providing buildbots, fixing bugs, answering the LLVM community’s questions and making sure the new target doesn’t break any of the other targets, or generic code. This behavior is expected to continue throughout the lifetime of the target’s code." No mention about the size or the amount of money their companies have, nor demands it to be a company at all.> I don’t think the 3 months cool down period replaces in any way this pre-evaluation. > If a single developer / single user of a virtual architecture is active enough for 3 months that nothing really breaks, it does not make it an “active community”.Er... This is what the current policy states: "The target must have addressed every other minimum requirement and have been stable in tree for at least 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." If everyone else's code don't break their stuff, or if every breakage is met with prompt fix and improvement on the test suite, it doesn't matter how many people, who or how many they are. If nothing really breaks after 3 months it means that their back-end is really pretty well isolated and hardened to cope with most front-end and middle end changes that will be thrown at them at considerable volumes. That sounds pretty good to me. cheers, --renato
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 August 2016 at 16:58, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> This was addressed in Alex’s email: " In the past, the only exception I can think of is the Lanai backend, but in that case we have a strong commitment of multiple employees at a major corporation committed to that target's maintenance.”. > > So, are we picking features based on company size, now? That doesn't > make much sense in an open source project…“Major corporation” does not mean size to me, I read it as “having a major involvement in the project”.> > The current policy states: > > "There must be an active community behind the target. This community > will help maintain the target by providing buildbots, fixing bugs, > answering the LLVM community’s questions and making sure the new > target doesn’t break any of the other targets, or generic code. This > behavior is expected to continue throughout the lifetime of the > target’s code." > > No mention about the size or the amount of money their companies have, > nor demands it to be a company at all.Note that the text mentions "active community”, which is what I’m asking about: “the question is about who will use/develop/maintain this backend upstream in LLVM?" "is there already an open-source community around this backend somewhere?" — Mehdi> > >> I don’t think the 3 months cool down period replaces in any way this pre-evaluation. >> If a single developer / single user of a virtual architecture is active enough for 3 months that nothing really breaks, it does not make it an “active community”. > > Er... This is what the current policy states: > > "The target must have addressed every other minimum requirement and > have been stable in tree for at least 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." > > If everyone else's code don't break their stuff, or if every breakage > is met with prompt fix and improvement on the test suite, it doesn't > matter how many people, who or how many they are. > > If nothing really breaks after 3 months it means that their back-end > is really pretty well isolated and hardened to cope with most > front-end and middle end changes that will be thrown at them at > considerable volumes. That sounds pretty good to me. > > cheers, > --renato
On 26 August 2016 at 17:45, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:> “Major corporation” does not mean size to me, I read it as “having a major involvement in the project”.Still, you're rejecting new developers because they haven't contributed much before. But if their back-end is upstream, than they'll contribute code upstream for their changes on their back-end. However, if we don't allow their back-end to be upstream, they won't contribute to the project. Looks like a self-defeating argument, and one that still doesn't agree with the open source philosophy. Not to mention that it's an argument that is not required by the policy in any way.> “the question is about who will use/develop/maintain this backend upstream in LLVM?"They have answered that question. Ed and Simon will be the active maintainers. I imagine they have other developers around to help. I don't see *any* concern here, nor any violation of the policy. Like the Lanai back-end, the community is the maintainers. LGTM.> "is there already an open-source community around this backend somewhere?"This is not a requirement of the policy, nor was a requirement to any other back-end, so not a valid argument. If we were to reject changes for not having an open source community elsewhere, we'd be chopping a very large parts of LLVM off. cheers, --renato
On 08/26/2016 09:45 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 26 August 2016 at 16:58, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >>> This was addressed in Alex’s email: " In the past, the only exception I can think of is the Lanai backend, but in that case we have a strong commitment of multiple employees at a major corporation committed to that target's maintenance.”. >> So, are we picking features based on company size, now? That doesn't >> make much sense in an open source project… > “Major corporation” does not mean size to me, I read it as “having a major involvement in the project”.The position Mehdi is expressing him is entirely reasonable and one that I explicitly support. Asking for evidence of likely future contribution before accepting a large piece of code is entirely reasonable and in line with our previous practice.> > >> The current policy states: >> >> "There must be an active community behind the target. This community >> will help maintain the target by providing buildbots, fixing bugs, >> answering the LLVM community’s questions and making sure the new >> target doesn’t break any of the other targets, or generic code. This >> behavior is expected to continue throughout the lifetime of the >> target’s code." >> >> No mention about the size or the amount of money their companies have, >> nor demands it to be a company at all. > > Note that the text mentions "active community”, which is what I’m asking about: > > “the question is about who will use/develop/maintain this backend upstream in LLVM?" > "is there already an open-source community around this backend somewhere?" > > > — > Mehdi > >> >>> I don’t think the 3 months cool down period replaces in any way this pre-evaluation. >>> If a single developer / single user of a virtual architecture is active enough for 3 months that nothing really breaks, it does not make it an “active community”. >> Er... This is what the current policy states: >> >> "The target must have addressed every other minimum requirement and >> have been stable in tree for at least 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." >> >> If everyone else's code don't break their stuff, or if every breakage >> is met with prompt fix and improvement on the test suite, it doesn't >> matter how many people, who or how many they are. >> >> If nothing really breaks after 3 months it means that their back-end >> is really pretty well isolated and hardened to cope with most >> front-end and middle end changes that will be thrown at them at >> considerable volumes. That sounds pretty good to me. >> >> cheers, >> --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev