llvm dev - Dec 2020 - 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

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:01 PM Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
Maybe we're not reading the same thing, it says:

"The peripheral tier is composed of: [...] Alternative build systems (ex.
GN, Bazel) and related infrastructure.".

Isn't this addressing your general objection to a "proliferation of
build
system files"?

>
> > 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.

Right, thanks for that.
I noted that you object about the principle of adding build system files by
itself (which is something mentioned in the policy as stated above). I
haven't noted though a particular concern of your that would be specific
about Bazel or anything specific that is proposed here.

Best,

-- 
Mehdi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201205/814c91b3/attachment.html>