Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
2020-Jun-03 17:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions
On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:> This was a mistake, fixed. > > I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ being a problem as the current forum for such discussions. > If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would seem better to me: if only for archiving/searching/tracking such discussions (but Discourse is much better that the mailing-list archives anyway).Hi Mehdi, I’m personally also in favor of using Discourse in general, but we as a community haven't converged on that decision. Until a decision is made on that (likely using this process) I think we should stick with llvm-dev as it is the defacto place to have discussions, even given all of the problems it has. -Chris
Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
2020-Jun-03 17:20 UTC
[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:01 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:> On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > This was a mistake, fixed. > > > > I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category > for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ > being a problem as the current forum for such discussions. > > If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would > seem better to me: if only for archiving/searching/tracking such > discussions (but Discourse is much better that the mailing-list archives > anyway). > > Hi Mehdi, > > I’m personally also in favor of using Discourse in general, but we as a > community haven't converged on that decision. Until a decision is made on > that (likely using this process) I think we should stick with llvm-dev as > it is the defacto place to have discussions, even given all of the problems > it has. >What about have *another* mailing-list dedicated for "pitch"/RFCs/community proposals/...? (It wouldn't prevent from CC llvm-dev@ when we start a proposal there if visibility is an issue, but I expect the newsletter to help as well> > -Chris > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200603/f6d5f213/attachment.html>
Kit Barton via llvm-dev
2020-Jun-03 17:56 UTC
[llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions
I like the idea of trying to use this process to determine the adoption of Discourse. I would suggest that another mailing list could be an alternative to consider as part of that proposal (specifically to handle the pitches). Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes:> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:01 AM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: >> > This was a mistake, fixed. >> > >> > I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category >> for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ >> being a problem as the current forum for such discussions. >> > If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would >> seem better to me: if only for archiving/searching/tracking such >> discussions (but Discourse is much better that the mailing-list archives >> anyway). >> >> Hi Mehdi, >> >> I’m personally also in favor of using Discourse in general, but we as a >> community haven't converged on that decision. Until a decision is made on >> that (likely using this process) I think we should stick with llvm-dev as >> it is the defacto place to have discussions, even given all of the problems >> it has. >> > > What about have *another* mailing-list dedicated for "pitch"/RFCs/community > proposals/...? > (It wouldn't prevent from CC llvm-dev@ when we start a proposal there if > visibility is an issue, but I expect the newsletter to help as well > > >> >> -Chris >> >>