Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
2020-Dec-05 05:42 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Contributing Bazel BUILD files in the "peripheral" support tier
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:35 PM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:23 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:06 PM Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:32 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev > >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Another spin to it: the point of working on the policy and putting it > in place was also to help make sure that such proposals aren't > automatically controversial to the point where we can't resolve them. If > the policy does not help us here, that's quite a failure IMO. > >> > >> This proposal isn't controversial because of the policy. > >> > >> As a matter of historical record, this new policy was shoehorned into > >> existence ex post facto, after the Bazel build system decision had > >> already been made, and because some people - myself included - > >> objected to the proposal. The policy doesn't address the potentially > >> infinite proliferation of build systems and build system files in > >> LLVM. Quite the opposite. > >> > >> And since you asked: my objections remain the same. In my opinion, > >> Bazel build system infrastructure files do not belong in the LLVM tree > >> anymore than GN, or autoconf, or rpm specs, or Solaris pkg specs do. > > > > > > So you oppose the policy itself, not this particular proposal alone? > That's fine but that's an important clarification because there is nothing > this proposal can do to address it, and the point of the policy is to be > able to consider such proposal without blocking them with such an objection. > > No and No. > > Q: Do I oppose the policy? > A: No, I don't.Sorry I don't quite get what you mean here and it is quite confusing to me: if you don't oppose the policy, that means you don't have an issue with it?> 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 don't quite get how the policy is irrelevant.> > Q: Do I not oppose this particular proposal? > (Warning: bumpy road ahead: double-negation.) > A: No, I do not not oppose this particular proposal. > Reduction: Yes, I object to this proposal, just like I objected a > month and a half ago (or so). >Right, but you're also objecting to GN being in-tree if I understand correctly (I'm not sure I understand you correctly though, since you just wrote above you don't oppose the policy). -- Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201204/15f62dca/attachment.html>
Stefan Teleman via llvm-dev
2020-Dec-05 06:00 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Contributing Bazel BUILD files in the "peripheral" support tier
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:42 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:> Sorry I don't quite get what you mean here and it is quite confusing to me: if you don't oppose the policy, that means you don't have an issue with it?I think I've already explained it. I don't have an issue with the policy because the policy does not address my main concern. My main concern - already stated today, and several weeks ago - is the open-ended proliferation of build system files.> I don't quite get how the policy is irrelevant.It doesn't address the concern I expressed above. It's the same concern I raised back on October.> Right, but you're also objecting to GN being in-tree if I understand correctly (I'm not sure I understand you correctly though, since you just wrote above you don't oppose the policy).I do not agree with the GN files being in-tree - for the same reasons I object to the Bazel files - but, unlike the Bazel files, GN is an accomplished fact at this point. Contrary to other statements made here, the GN files appeared in the LLVM tree relatively recently. At any rate, I am perfectly aware that the Bazel files will end up in the LLVM tree. You asked for objections to be re-stated, I re-stated mine. -- Stefan Teleman stefan.teleman at gmail.com