similar to: Cleaned up contributing guidelines

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:16:47AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> The goals of this effort are outlined in the previous email but, in short, we aim to: >> - encourage ongoing contributions to LLVM by preserving low barrier to entry for contributors.

Hi Everyone, I’d like to start a discussion about how to improve some important issues we have in the LLVM community, regarding our license and patent policy. Before we get started, I’d like to emphasize that *this is an RFC*, intended for discussion. There is no time pressure to do something fast here -- we want to do the right long-term thing for the community (though we also don’t want

On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> writes: > >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided >>> that

I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of a slight change we''ve made to the process for open source contributions. For *trivial* contributions, we are no longer requiring a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Note that for most contributions a CLA signature is still required. I''m also working on making the overall CLA process easier, but that will take a little more time

> > > > I’m still not completely convinced by this argument, given that the > majority of patent lawsuits come from NPEs. That is not necessarily where the majority of patent lawsuit *danger* comes from, and i'd argue, pretty strongly, it's not the most likely case for LLVM. > We’d still be in the situation where a malicious contributor could: > > 1. Spin up a

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:25:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> 1) We could introduce a novel legal solution. > > Please, no. > >> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. > > To me, this is the most acceptable

On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >>> >>> To me, this is the most acceptable option of the listed terms. >> >> Please explain: why? > > First part for me is that switching the code to a different license > doesn't

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 19:40 schrieb Daniel Berlin: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >>>> >>>>

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:54:30PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >>>> 2) We could require new contributors to sign the Apache CLA. >> >>> >>

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Am 19.10.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Chris Lattner via llvm-dev: >> >> Unfortunately, adding the Apache CLA also has several disadvantages >> as well: >> >> - It adds new barriers for new contributors to LLVM. We don’t >> currently have a process where you

Dear list members, First of all thank you for your helpful advices. After your answeres to my firt mail I studied a lot (R-News n?5) and I tried to perform my analysis: First, to fit a GLM with a nested design I decided to use the function "lmer" in package "lme4" as suggested by Spencer Graves and Filippo Piro. I remember to you that my data were: land use classes, 3 levels

Hello everyone, This email is a continuation of a discussion from almost a year ago, started back here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html As described in that email, this is a complicated topic and deals with sensitive legal issues. I am not a lawyer, and this email is not intended to be legal advice in the formal sense. That said, I have spoken with many

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can find old threads about it, but nothing saying why it was decided > that contributor agreement wouldn't work. Care to send the URL? Here are some quick points that come to mind: 1. It raises the bar to contribution, because something must be “signed” before a

I'm a week-old R user, and have become stuck trying to create usable CSV outputs for post-processing. I am using the package Rioja, which provides small datasets of results. I am running several analyses in a loop and iteratively adding the results to a *list* ("combined"). Within each iteration I use the following: > combined[[i]] <- performance(fit) With two iterations I

Hello to all, That is my situation: I am trying to use dovecot as LDA with postfix, mysql e postfixadmin. So, all the users are stored in mysql, with quota password and all other things. All works properly, except for quota. I am trying to do some tests, but is not clear to me how to debug that problem. Scenario: user with 15 Mb of quota. That is my dovecot.conf (dovecot version 1.1.3 on

> > Hi All, > > Can you please guide us in solving this issue. > > Version used : libvirt-1.0.6 > # rpm -qa | egrep "libvirt|qemu" > qemu-kvm-0.14.1-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.x86_64 > libvirt-1.0.6-1_WR4.3.x86_64_XXX.2.x86_64 > > Problem : > > # virsh cpu-stats CLA-0 > error: Failed to retrieve CPU statistics for domain 'CLA-0' > *error:

I don’t have a link off hand. Two major points: 1) CLA’s in general require an additional approval step, which reduces contributions. 2) The apache CLA in general gives too much power (e.g. the power to relicense arbitrarily going forward) to the organization (in this case, llvm.org <http://llvm.org/>) which can deter contributions from folks who don’t want relicensing to be a simple act.

I will follow up with you offlist. -Chris > On Apr 29, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On April 29, 2017 12:46:35 PM EDT, Chris Lattner <clattner at llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:10:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Let's start with: In just about every country in the world, anyone > > contributing on behalf of their company are exercising their employers > > copyright (in most cases, even if they do it in

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:11:11AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:10:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: >