Chandler, Branching is exactly what we're trying to avoid. When the project started, LLVM was branched, and now we are stuck maintaining a branch that differs from upstream by a diff of ~14,000 lines.
We'd like to avoid the same mistake with Clang, if possible, which is why I don't mind delaying to have these discussions, as long as they can be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. - pdox On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > While our ABI is not 100% finalized, until this patch is committed, we >> > can't do any external testing with Clang. (unless we create our own >> > branch, which we'd rather not) >> >> I'm sorry, but we do expect code to go through code review, which >> includes a thorough review of the underlying motivations and technical >> design. > > I also don't see why this would block testing. There are lots of ways to > patch something together if you just want to get feedback on what you're > doing from users... That might actually provide good data for the very > codereview and design discussion taking place. It's not like external > parties can start using what you have in production environments or regular > development processes if the very ABI is still in flux, but maybe I don't > understand something. > If you just want a way to share what you're working on, toss it up on github > with the patch applied and point people at it. There are lots of ways of > sharing code during the review process. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
