----- Original Message ----- > From: "Douglas Gregor" <[email protected]> > To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "llvm > cfe" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:14:44 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [cfe-commits] Cilk Plus Extension for Clang > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Douglas Gregor" <[email protected]> > >> To: "Hal Finkel" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <[email protected]>, > >> [email protected], "llvm cfe" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:57:25 PM > >> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [cfe-commits] Cilk Plus Extension for Clang > >> > >> > >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Hal Finkel <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Vendors should commit to ongoing support of their work, but we > >>> should not otherwise have a 'pay to play' policy. > >> > >> > >> It's not 'pay to play', it's a meritocracy. You have to prove both > >> that you're willing and that you are able to provide ongoing > >> support > >> for your own extensions in Clang. The larger, more experimental, > >> or > >> more niche the extension is, the higher the burden to prove > >> continuing support. Statements of commitment hold no sway for a > >> community that will be tasked with ongoing maintenance if you > >> don't > >> live up to your commitment. > > > > I was specifically responding to Chandler's statement, "Then, for > > Intel contributors to join and engage the Clang community, taking > > on significant maintenance work and other upstream development > > tasks." This very clearly sounds like saying that they need to > > help us with other stuff first, and moreover, "significant > > maintenance work" implies significant cost. That is pay-to-play. > > You may define meritocracy partially in terms of resource > > commitment, and that's valid, but still implies a cost to the > > contributor. > > > > My point is that we should not be looking for "significant > > maintenance work and other upstream development tasks" from them > > to prove themselves. Ongoing maintenance of their extension in an > > open public repository, with good code quality, docs and tests, > > and a positive interaction with the community should be enough. > > > I disagree, at least in part. I think a company as large as Intel, if > it wants to contribute such a large vendor-specific extension, does > need to prove that it understands how to work well with the > open-source community. It is not a process that comes naturally to > organizations of that size. They can engage the community either by > making general improvements to Clang, or with targeted refactoring > and improvements that enable their extension (which are also general > goodness for Clang), but there must be *something*. We simply can't > take a massive code dump on a promise.
Fair enough. I agree. Thanks again, Hal > > - Doug > -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
