slyubomirsky commented on PR #95: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/95#issuecomment-1284610277
I wonder about a situation where some parties indicate up front that they are resolutely opposed to ever permitting an S0 module to become S1. Even if this process permits the module to be merged as S0, it would essentially be known in advance that it is unlikely ever to be fully integrated into the project. Is having such a module remain indefinitely in the optional state an acceptable outcome? The text of the RFC makes it sound like the S0 state is intended to be temporary until the module is either made permanent or deprecated; is that a reasonable inference? In particular, the point about discussing future plans for a module may be worth further consideration: >There should be discussions about how the proposal fits into the project to bring clarity. We also acknowledge that not all S1, S2 level decisions can be made at the beginning. Additionally, an S0-module should show a clear positive fit to some(but not all) aspects of the project and clear cohesion to some of the existing modules. As the development evolves, more discussions will happen in future RFCs with additional evidence that help us to make informed decisions. If some community members indicate their opposition to an eventual RFC, that would render the future roadmap moot, no? I guess this is a question about having the hard discussion up front or later. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
