On 7/1/20 2:12 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > >> On Jul 1, 2020, at 10:11 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >> >> 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 have a common >> incubator.llvm.org <http://incubator.llvm.org> page which links >> to the docs defining the process and lists all active incubators >> with links to docs in their own repo? >> > Sounds great, Iâm happy to take this out - this avoids âpromisingâ it, > but we can still discuss it on a case-by-case basis.  I changed this > to "Other infrastructure integration can be discussed on a > case-by-case basis.â, because there are bug tracker and other things > as well. >> >> 2. The must/should terminology should probably be factored out once >> and referenced. As written, it takes a little effort to be sure >> the definitions are the same between the two uses. >> > Iâm not sure what you mean here.  Do you have a recommended approach? Land yours, and if I still care, I'll send a patch. :) >> >> 3. 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 youâre saying, but I think we can handle this as part of > the approval process.  We can bounce of things that qualitatively > donât feel credible and give guidance there, but can still be > receptive if something seems like a promising direction. >> >> 4. As I mentioned before, I'd advocate for the notion of a sponsor >> (an existing LLVM contributor) for each incubator. I'd have that >> a must on the incubator list. >> > Yes, this is a good idea.  The problem here is âhow do we decide who > qualifies as a sponsor?â.  I donât know a good way to say that - > someone with N years of LLVM experience, M patches, â¦?  How does this > get explained? You said elsewhere that we could let this evolve with experience. I would take that sentiment, and apply it here. I'm really more concerned about the expectations of the role (i.e. some human familiar with LLVM norms willing to invest non-trivial time), than I am the details of who is eligible. Since I don't want this to be blocking item, why don't we land what you have and I can draft something as a patch? It seems like there's some general agreement about a potential issue and we just need to find a way to address it. > > -Chris > >> Philip >> >> On 6/30/20 8:29 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote: >>> Looks like a good proposal to me as-is! Thanks for putting this >>> together to both of you :) >>> >>> -- >>> Mehdi >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:49 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev >>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Hah, whoops, sorry about that. This is the correct link: >>> 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 >>>> <mailto:tlively at google.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Chris, >>>> >>>> I'm also seeing an access denied error on the first link you >>>> shared, and although I can access the second document, it >>>> doesn't look like the document you meant to share. It looks >>>> like a one pager on ML in Swift. >>>> >>>> Thomas >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:05 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev >>>>> <lebedev.ri at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of adding an âincubationâ stage to projects in >>>>>> the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also >>>>>> noticed that we donât 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 âNew Targetsâ section). >>>>>> >>>>>> Ahead of proposing a Phabricator patch, we put it into >>>>>> this google doc, Iâd love to get feedback on it from >>>>>> anyone who is interested in this: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit >>>>> Currently it doesn't open, "You need access", sanity >>>>> check: is viewing >>>>> allowed for everybody? >>>> >>>> It says that âanyone on the internet is allowed to >>>> commentâ, maybe this link will work better?: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lC7cOJ2Iiqdx62o81J5YP7RzFHi8k2Rkt0zla-Kh6no/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> In any case, if google docs isnât cooperating, then you can >>>> check it out when it gets to Phabricator. >>>> >>>> -Chris >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20200706/879c4a18/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4