llvm dev - Mar 2021 - [PROPOSAL] Add Bazel Build Configuration to the LLVM Monorepo

Hello LLVM-Dev,

Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've updated the
proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find the proposal
online here
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md>.

The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be approved.

Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this proposal,
and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and shepherding it
along.

-Chris
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at
google.com> wrote:
> 
> A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this coming
Tuesday. Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous RFC threads
then review managers will also consider those points when discussing. We're
not going to skip some point just because it wasn't posted in the correct
thread :-D
> 
> Best,
> Geoffrey
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com
<mailto:rengolin at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at google.com
<mailto:gcmn at google.com>> wrote:
> To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to make
Bazel a supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which I believe the
proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage and shared configuration
for people and projects that already use it. I do not expect that Bazel will
cover all the use cases currently supported by LLVM CMake any time soon
(ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so have no insight on the support plan
for those architectures. Only developers interested in working with Bazel would
be expected to use or update the configuration, so lack of support for specific
architectures should not affect things, I think.
> 
> My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build system
and doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM builds. It
should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely transparent
to the rest who don't.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210315/f6b7927a/attachment.html>

Thanks for the update Chris - could you summarize what this means for the
proposal/what stage in the proposal process this is? Does this represent
approval, and the patch should now be submitted without further high level
design review (that is covered by the proposal review)? Or are there
further steps?

(does the approval indicate where these files should live? Next to the gn
files? A new top level location? or is that still up to further community
review)

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:22 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello LLVM-Dev,
>
> Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've
updated
> the proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find the
> proposal online here
>
<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md>
> .
>
> The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be
> approved.
>
> Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this
> proposal, and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and
> shepherding it along.
>
> -Chris
>
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at
google.com>
> wrote:
>
> A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this coming
> Tuesday. Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous RFC
> threads then review managers will also consider those points when
> discussing. We're not going to skip some point just because it
wasn't
> posted in the correct thread :-D
>
> Best,
> Geoffrey
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at
google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to
make
>>> Bazel a supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which
I
>>> believe the proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage
and
>>> shared configuration for people and projects that already use it. I
do not
>>> expect that Bazel will cover all the use cases currently supported
by LLVM
>>> CMake any time soon (ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so
have no
>>> insight on the support plan for those architectures. Only
developers
>>> interested in working with Bazel would be expected to use or update
the
>>> configuration, so lack of support for specific architectures should
not
>>> affect things, I think.
>>>
>>
>> My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build
system and
>> doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM
builds. It
>> should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely
>> transparent to the rest who don't.
>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210315/21d430c5/attachment.html>

Congratulations Geoffrey and everyone else involved on getting this done! It was
a long journey, but we set a lot of important legal precedent so hopefully
similar issues go more smoothly in the future.

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Chris
Bieneman via llvm-dev
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:22 AM
To: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [PROPOSAL] Add Bazel Build Configuration to the
LLVM Monorepo

Hello LLVM-Dev,

Last week the review managers met to discuss this proposal. I've updated the
proposal document with a summary of the meeting. You can find the proposal
online
here<https://github.com/llvm/llvm-www/blob/main/proposals/LP0002-BazelBuildConfiguration.md>.

The TL;DR is that the review managers agreed the proposal should be approved.

Thank you everyone who participated in the conversations around this proposal,
and especially Geoffrey for putting the proposal together and shepherding it
along.

-Chris


On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at
google.com<mailto:gcmn at google.com>> wrote:

A reminder that the review period for this ends 2021-02-23, this coming Tuesday.
Rest assured that if you expressed opinions in the previous RFC threads then
review managers will also consider those points when discussing. We're not
going to skip some point just because it wasn't posted in the correct thread
:-D

Best,
Geoffrey

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:44 AM Renato Golin <rengolin at
gmail.com<mailto:rengolin at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 21:00, Geoffrey Martin-Noble <gcmn at
google.com<mailto:gcmn at google.com>> wrote:
To expand a bit on Eric's response, the intent here is *not* to make Bazel a
supported build system for LLVM or to replace CMake (which I believe the
proposal makes clear), but rather to enable Bazel usage and shared configuration
for people and projects that already use it. I do not expect that Bazel will
cover all the use cases currently supported by LLVM CMake any time soon
(ever?).I don't work on Bazel itself, so have no insight on the support plan
for those architectures. Only developers interested in working with Bazel would
be expected to use or update the configuration, so lack of support for specific
architectures should not affect things, I think.

My views exactly. Bazel will not be a "supported" build system and
doesn't need to build on all platforms and environments LLVM builds. It
should only concern people that actually use Bazel and be completely transparent
to the rest who don't.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210315/04aa5bc9/attachment-0001.html>