Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev
2020-Dec-05 05:44 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Contributing Bazel BUILD files in the "peripheral" support tier
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:40 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:35 AM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:>> Q: Do I oppose the policy? >> A: No, I don't. As I have already stated, the policy was created after >> the fact. I am in opposition to the fact. The policy is secondary, and >> irrelevant, because its only purpose is to provide cover for the >> existing fact. If the fact didn't exist, the policy wouldn't be >> necessary. >> > > I'm sorry, but this is incorrect in every word. The policy encoded existing practice over the last decade plus and is as we have been implementing all along. If that doesn't match your experiences as a newer developer I'm quite sorry, but is the case.By "last decade" you probably mean the sudden appearance of the GN build files. I wouldn't call it "last decade". Perhaps "last year or so" would be more accurate. Please don't pull rank. It's tacky and uncalled for. Thanks. -- Stefan Teleman stefan.teleman at gmail.com
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
2020-Dec-05 05:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Contributing Bazel BUILD files in the "peripheral" support tier
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:45 AM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:40 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:35 AM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> Q: Do I oppose the policy? > >> A: No, I don't. As I have already stated, the policy was created after > >> the fact. I am in opposition to the fact. The policy is secondary, and > >> irrelevant, because its only purpose is to provide cover for the > >> existing fact. If the fact didn't exist, the policy wouldn't be > >> necessary. > >> > > > > I'm sorry, but this is incorrect in every word. The policy encoded > existing practice over the last decade plus and is as we have been > implementing all along. If that doesn't match your experiences as a newer > developer I'm quite sorry, but is the case. > > By "last decade" you probably mean the sudden appearance of the GN > build files. I wouldn't call it "last decade". Perhaps "last year or > so" would be more accurate. > >No. I meant every word that I said. The policy encoded existing practice and exactly how we've handled things for years. I'm sorry if this hasn't matched your experiences, as I said, but there's nothing new or radical with what we wrote down. It's what we've intended and how we've meant to act.> Please don't pull rank. It's tacky and uncalled for. >Avoid the personal commentary, I'm giving you context that you may not have. Thanks. -eric> > Thanks. > > -- > Stefan Teleman > stefan.teleman at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > 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/20201205/05bec2ee/attachment.html>