similar to: Target Acceptance Policy

Re-cap, after reviews. Main changes: * Making it clear that the "active community" behaviour is expected to continue throughout the target's lifetime. * Making it clear that only a reduced set of violation will be allowed in the experimental phase, providing the maintainers are taking the cost to move it to full compliance. * Trust, but verify: If the target's community

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:47 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jul 25, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 6. The target's code must have been adapted to the developers policy as > well as > > the coding standards. This can take a while and it should be fine to

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > I'm most certainly not. Just because I didn't write something, that I means I have written the opposite.= > I’m failing to reconcile what you’re claiming above with the following that is in your proposal: "The target's code must have been adapted to the developers policy as

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I'm not hung up on the fixed number of months. I don't even think it's the > best idea, but I was expecting people to give their own ideas... :-) > > But saying "as soon as they are ready" may be hard to assess. And writing > it specific for the Lanai back end would not

On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no earlier > than Sep 28th. I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy after the Lanai back-end started the process... And making Lanai official just before the policy goes public would be cheeky. :) > 2)

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 12:16, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> > wrote: > > 1) Leave the wording as is, and make Lanai an official back-end no > earlier > > than Sep 28th. > > I don't want to *have* to do that just because we introduced a policy

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 04:46, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> I don’t make sense of this, so I guess we are not talking about the same >> thing. > > I think I know what it is... :) > > >> Moving from experimental to non-experimental is a one-line

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:47 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

On 29 Jul 2016 12:00 p.m., "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com> wrote: > ...and this requirement pushes conversion of Lanai back-end to an official target status to Sep 28th as earliest. Just saying. > > [Personally, I believe that given the level of support, Lanai is already ready for an official status. But if we codify "must have" rules, they should

On 29 July 2016 at 17:50, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague > "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts), I'm ok with that, too. Though, what do you think about the "2 months after all done"? Maybe "at least 2"? Giving a number makes

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:16:51 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy > > On 26

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 20:07, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> I think there are different kinds of inflexibility. We will use our collective professional judgment. There are some large-scale design changes that we might decide can happen over time. Whatever we decide to accept,

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:28 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 17:50, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> No, the problem is that your writing is making an exception to the developer policy, and I don’t think it is a good thing. > > I think requiring such a high bar from start is not a good community >

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Renato >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> A few basic rules to get accepted are if: >> * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

On 19 July 2016 at 17:04, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Presumably if my out-of-tree backend was to be pushed to LLVM, it too would be considered experimental. Yes. Though, not all out-of-tree back-ends end up upstream for different reasons. A few basic rules to get accepted are if: * the target exists and can be easily purchased / emulated

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 06:44, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> But I also see another option, which someone else mentioned up-thread: >> simply make only the regression tests be supported. Without a regression >> test case that

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:40:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Target Acceptance Policy > > On 26 July 2016 at 18:33, Mehdi Amini

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 17:50, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague > > "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts), > > I'm ok with that, too. > >

Dear LLVM community, We wanted to discuss the possibility of moving the Lanai backend from an experimental status to a regular backend. During the initial upstreaming of the Lanai backend (llvm-dev thread "[RFC] Lanai backend", http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/095118.html) it was discussed that we could move out of experimental status after a few months of

On 7/19/2016 6:12 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > > I don't see why not. LGTM. Same here. -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation