similar to: [PROPOSAL] Introduce a new LLVM process to resolve contentious decisions

On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Kit Barton <kit.barton at gmail.com> wrote: > A few comments on the document: > 1. It seems the current document has settled on using threads on > llvm-dev, however there are still two reference to the LLVM Proposal > Reviews category on Discourse: last paragraph of Proposed Solution > section, first paragraph of the Review Discussion Template

On Jun 2, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > This was a mistake, fixed. > > I missed that this was changed, I was excited about a Discourse category for this! In particular the second point of the doc points at llvm-dev@ being a problem as the current forum for such discussions. > If Discourse is a no-go (?), then having a separate mailing-list would

Hi Everyone, Numerous people have been bringing up challenges with consensus driven decision making in the LLVM community. After considering this and seeing the frustrations it is causing many people, I think we should make a formal process change to help improve decision making going forward. Here is the outline of the draft proposal

On 01/15, James Henderson via llvm-dev wrote: > One other thought: any formal review period needs to be long enough for > people to contribute to if they have any annual leave from work or > whatever. For example, if the review period were to be set to two weeks, > I'd have missed proposals made at the start of roughly 2-3 different 2 week > periods last year. It would have been

I previously <https://groups.google.com/g/llvm-dev/c/u07o3QREVUg/> proposed contributing Bazel build files to the LLVM monorepo, supported *only* by interested community members and not to interfere with or affect the existing CMake configuration. As part of that conversation, it became clear that the LLVM policies for more "peripheral" components were not clearly documented. We

I’m just now catching up on this massive thread after being on vacation last week, and I have a few thoughts I’d like to share. First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as presence of consensus. The various git-related threads on LLVM-dev lately have been so active and contentious that I think a lot of people are zoning out on the conversations. As supporting

On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As RFCs go this is short and sweet - I think it would be nice to add an >> empty method to iterator_range. Something like: >> >> bool empty() const { return begin() != end();

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

Hi, I would like to remind people about the Virtualization track at Linux Plumbers Conference 2010, held in Cambridge, MA, November 3-5, 2010. Please note the deadline for submissions is July 19, 2010. LPC is particular well suited for technical presentations, work in progress and subjects that needs discussion and collaboration between communities (kernel, desktop/gfx, virtualization, etc.),

On 27 July 2016 at 17:47, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > First and foremost please don’t consider lack of dissent on the thread as > presence of consensus. Hi Chris, First things first: I give you my word that I will be yelling louder than others if this ever happens. (I can be *very* loud! :) People can push and yell all they want, changes like

> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no real point in changing anything. No real point *for you specifically*. But the vast majority of people would not be stuck using git-svn. And in addition the LLVM project would not be stuck using svn, with all the baggage, hosting issues, workflow issues (for people other than you), etc. The bar by which this proposal should be

Hi Duncan, > […] > 2. Those working on projects *outside* the monolithic repo will get the downsides of both: a monolithic repo that they are only using parts of, and multiple repos that are somehow version-locked. > > 3. For many (most?) developers, changing to a monolithic git repo is a *bigger* workflow change than switching to separate git repos. Many people (and at least some

> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13 October 2016 at 20:45, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> This is a point of contention and a concern that Chris voiced about the monorepo. It should be in the survey. > > A lot of concerns were voiced on the discussion, not all of them here. > >

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>> (2) If I’m stuck using git-svn I kinda feel like there is no real point in changing anything. >> >>

Hi Philip, I think you might be reading more into the suggestion/discussion than is actually there. * I do not want upstream developers "trying to be polite" if that delays otherwise worthwhile work. Nobody suggested that. It’s perfectly possible to “be polite” and still not delay worthwhile work. * The current policy is "downstream is on their own". Nobody

Hi Jean-Marc, my answers: see below. Any good ideas how I should proceed? Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> hat am 1. Februar 2010 um 13:09 geschrieben: > Hi Frank, > > On 2010-02-01 05:56, Frank Lorenz wrote: > > I get really strange results when comparing floating and fixed point > > versions of interal variables of the ltp, so either something is

I talked with Majnemer/Mehdi about developing this proposal on github. They said that this was ok (after all we are moving to github). We can add facts to the specific proposal via PRs which we can use to center the discussion. I created a straw man repo and a scaffolding hacked from the swift-evolution process for just this purpose. I hacked some words from jlebar's initial email as just a

Hi Chris, Bear in mind that the more questions we have, the harder it will be to interpret the results. If we have 20+ questions, it'll be impossible to understand anything. Also, the multiple choice questions are meant as a guide to understand "how many" people fall into one or another category, while the free text ones are meant to complement and give technical reasons for their

Hello all, this is not really an * question but it is somehow related, i am trying to develop a working proposal for cheap and quick telephony services using Voip running over *. By running a wireless network (over 802.11 a/b/g devices), i plan to be able to reach customers directly with eithe table top or handheld 802.11 sip enabled phones. But the disadvantage is that how do i power each radio