similar to: [Vote] Formal vote for Mirage to be accepted as Xen.org Incubation Project (deadliner Feb 15th)

Hi everybody, this e-mail is to let you know that the OpenMirage project is seeking to become a Xen.org hosted project. The prospective project lead of the Mirage Project - Anil Madhavapeddy - has requested a Review of the Mirage Project to become an Xen.org Incubation project. In line with Xen Project Governance (see http://www.xen.org/projects/governance.html), in particular sections -

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:54 AM Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:40 PM Stella Laurenzo via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We originally started it as a fork of the LLVM repository, but > transitioned to the MLIR standalone template, and we found it more > productive to iterate out of tree in this fashion,

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:44:25AM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > Tom, > > I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official

Michah, On Jul 17, 2012, at 7:53 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Owen/Chandler/etc.., > While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:40 PM Stella Laurenzo via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We originally started it as a fork of the LLVM repository, but transitioned to the MLIR standalone template, and we found it more productive to iterate out of tree in

Yes it is happening. I sent a mail 2 to the list weeks ago. I sent out a mail earlier today to get input on revised timing. I would try and arrive the evening before or in the early hours of wed 8ish or so Lars Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> Date: 2013/09/09 18:54 (GMT+00:00) To: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xen.org> Cc:

Owen/Chandler/etc.., While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we have found from internal development to LLVM, along with patches in some cases. Some have been fixed, but others are

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:12 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree with the no-code standard. I agree with minimal code, but I think an incubator should be established enough to be discussed concretely (e.g. "what is" vs "ideals"). > > I hear what you’re saying, but I think we can handle this as part of

Per the recent (seeming) consensus regarding incubating new projects under the LLVM organization, I would like to trial the process by requesting to incubate mlir-npcomp <https://github.com/google/mlir-npcomp>. The project is still quite young and has been primarily developed part time by myself and Sean Silva over the last ~2 months. We set it up following discussion of a Numpy/Scipy op set

I am trying to find the mean for the elements in the vector Incubation=as.POSIXlt(OnsetTime)-as.POSIXlt(MealTime) where OnsetTime=c(NA,"1940-04-19 00:30","1940-04-19 00:30","1940-04-19 00:30",NA,"1940-04-18 22:30","1940-04-18 22:30","1940-04-19 02:00","1940-04-19 01:00","1940-04-18

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > > > I am in favor of this. I think having specific criteria and time lines > > will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers. > > > > However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think

The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in general in the LLVM Developer Policy. To help with both of these Stella and I worked together to draft up a new section for the LLVM developer policy (incorporating the existing “New Targets” section). Ahead of proposing a

On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard at amd.com> wrote: > I am in favor of this. I think having specific criteria and time lines > will be beneficial for both maintainers and reviewers. > > However, instead of having a separate branch, what do you think about > adding the backend to the main tree, but not building it by default. > This would make it

Dear R users. I am little lost and i need your help. I have such data. DATE i Symptomes t 1 2009-04-24 Mexique 0 14358 2 2009-04-24 usa 0 14358 3 2009-04-26 Mexique 18 14360 4 2009-04-26 usa 100 14360 5 2009-04-27 Canada 6 14361 6 2009-04-27

Hello, everyone. I'm hoping to prevent myself from doing a lot of pointing and clicking in Excel. I have a dataframe of bird nest check observations, in which I know the date of the first check, the date of the second check (both currently in Julian date format), the status of the nest at the second check (alive or failed), and the date that the nest hatched (i.e. changed from Incubation

> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in

This Friday, February 15th, at 12 Noon EST, 9AM PST, 17:00 UTC, Lumenvox will be joining us on the VoIP Users Conference. This week, the last in a series about IVR, Lumenvox will be there to discuss and field your questions on their speech recognition solutions. http://www.VoipUsersConference.org - for info on the conference, how to connect, etc IRC freenode.net #voip-users-conference - to

Hah, whoops, sorry about that. This is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit> -Chris > On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Thomas Lively <tlively at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > I'm also seeing an access denied

Sure, I'll summarize with respect to the criterion in the document: - Must be generally aligned with the mission of the LLVM project to advance compilers, languages, tools, runtimes, etc. CIRCT is a compiler which is built around LLVM/MLIR. We anticipate building code generation for ASIC and FPGA backends along with specialized accelerators, while leveraging existing LLVM backends for

This looks to be a reasonable starting point. A couple of nit picks, none are blockers. 1. I'd hold off on handing out the sub-domain for the moment. This feels more official than we probably want for a random incubator.  I reserve the right to change my mind here, but maybe we should delay this part until we see what actual incubators look like?  As an alternative, maybe