[llvm-dev] amount of camelCase refactoring causing some downstream overhead

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:39:15 -0000

Hi Philip,

While it's true we don't I think Valentin is reasonable in saying
"hey,
when people do this let's try to combine them if it makes sense".
It's just
being polite to everyone, especially if it doesn't risk the patches or
upstream stability. I don't think there's a policy change being
proposed,
just a "hey, let's see what we can do in the future".

-eric

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:05 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Valentin,
>
> You are proposing to change existing policy.  Current policy is that we
> don't consider downstream *at all*.  Your proposal may seem reasonable
- it
> may even *be* reasonable - but it is definitely a change from historical
> practice and must be considered as such.
>
> Philip
> On 2/18/20 3:03 PM, Valentin Churavy wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is arguing to change longstanding policy. From a
> downstream perspective many small renaming changes do increase overhead for
> us.
>
> One thing that happens to downstream projects is that they support more
> than one LLVM version, we (JuliaLang) currently try to support latest
> stable + master.
>
> So for me the question is more, are renaming changes worth downstream
> projects not being able to test and provide feedback to upstream?  One way
> of mitigating that is to consciously schedule them just before a release
> and do them all in short succession.
>
> -V
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 17:00 Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> As others have said, our long standing policy has been that downstream
>> projects must fend for themselves.  We're certainly not going to
reverse
>> that policy without careful discussion of the tradeoffs.
>>
>> I'm personally of the opinion that there could be a middle ground
which
>> allows upstream to move quickly while reducing headache for downstream
>> projects.  Given I wear both hats, I know I'd certainly appreciate
such
>> a state.  However, it's important to state that such decisions
would
>> need to be carefully considered and would require some very careful
>> drafting of proposal to balance the competing interests at hand.
>>
>> If anyone is curious, I'm happy to share some ideas offline on what
>> starting points might be, but I have neither the time nor the interest
>> to drive such a conversion on list.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> On 2/18/20 1:37 AM, Ties Stuij via llvm-dev wrote:
>> > During that variable renaming debate, there was a discussion about
>> discussion about doing things all at once, piecemeal or not at all. An
>> issue that wasn't really resolved I think. I had the impression
that the
>> efforts fizzled out a bit, and I thought this renaming was maybe
related to
>> that, but I'm neutral on if we should do variable renaming.
>> >
>> > All I'm asking as a kindness if we could be kind on poor
downstream
>> maintainers not on the issue of variable renaming at large, but on the
>> micro level of not pushing 5/6 patches of this kind covering closely
>> related functionality in two days but collating them in 1. I don't
think
>> that would slow down development, and I wanted to highlight the issue,
as
>> people might not be aware that they could save some pain in a simple
way.
>> Especially if indeed there is going to be a big renaming push and this
>> would be a continuous thing.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > /Ties
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de>
>> > Sent: 17 February 2020 21:16
>> > To: Ties Stuij
>> > Cc: llvm-dev
>> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] amount of camelCase refactoring causing
some
>> downstream overhead
>> >
>> > My understanding is that LLVM's general policy is to not let
>> > downstream slow down upstream development. The C++ API explicitly
>> > unstable.
>> >
>> > Note that we are even considering renaming variables globally:
>> >
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/134921.html
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > Am Mo., 17. Feb. 2020 um 06:04 Uhr schrieb Ties Stuij via llvm-dev
>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>> >> Hi there,
>> >>
>> >> At the end of last week we saw a number of commits go in that
were
>> camelCasing batches of MCStreamer::Emit* and AsmPrinter::Emit*
functions.
>> >>
>> >> For example:
>> >> -
https://reviews.llvm.org/rG549b436beb4129854e729a3e1398f03429149691
>> >> -
https://reviews.llvm.org/rGa55daa146166353236aa528546397226bee9363b
>> >> -
https://reviews.llvm.org/rG0bc77a0f0d1606520c7ad0ea72c434661786a956
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately all these individual commits trigger the same
merge
>> conflicts over and over again with our downstream repo, which takes us
some
>> manual intervention every time.
>> >>
>> >> I understand uniformity is a nice to have, but:
>> >> 1 - is it worth it to do this work right now? I can remember
the
>> casing debate a few months back, which seems unrelated to this work
which
>> seems manual, but I'm unsure of the outcome.
>> >> 2 - If this work should be done, it would be nice if all of
the work
>> is done in one batch, to save us some of the downstream overhead.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> /Ties
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200218/366f9568/attachment.html>