On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 2 June 2016 at 23:22, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espind...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Because the patch includes way too much and doesn't explain what it is > doing. > > So let me get this straight: someone publishes a patch, you don't like > it, you do some private investigations and commit whatever you want > without even notifying the original authors? > > I don't know how you work at your company, but this is not how open > source development works. > > This is not the first time either that you step over people's toes > with your "design decisions" that you don't share with anyone. Last > year, Adhemerval has worked for three months to get the LLD AArch64 > back-end working and out of the blue, no warning, the whole back-end > was yanked. > > It doesn't matter if it was the right decision or not in the long > term, we don't just yank things, especially not before some > deliberation on the list. See how long is taking for the new pass > manager to be enabled, or FastIsel or the new Selection, or the new > register allocators, etc. > > That's not how open source works and I assumed you knew that. > > > > That is a general problem with aarch64, the documentation is missing > > and comments have to make due. I had a lot of work to rewrite the > > original aarch64 patches to be in line with the rest of lld and I > > didn't want to have to do the same for tls. > > You shouldn't be rewriting *any* patch, but asking the original > authors to do that themselves. > > There is a pattern that I'm seeing and that's that *you* refuse or > dismiss more patches than most other people. There are many of your > comments on reviews that are just personal, and then you step over > people's toes and commits yourself. > > This does not scale. But more importantly, it puts into doubt the > validity of the tool you're so hardly defending. > > You see, 3 years ago, I was asked to choose between MCLinker and LLD. > MCLinker was a linker for all purposes, but Chris Lattner convinced me > that LLD is the LLVM linker, and we should be focusing all efforts > there. > > It goes against the commercial interests of Linaro members to choose > such a premature technology, and it did put them back years of > development, because MCLinker was very close to ready, and MediaTek, > despite what people said, was very willing to accept our help. > > But in the interest of the community, and the open source nature of my > work, I have decided to pursue LLD and managed to convince Linaro to > put two people working on it. But now, I'm re-evaluating all my > strategy, and sincerely, I do not trust the LLD community anymore. > Not so fast to conclude that the community is not trustworthy, it doesn't consist of a single person or a single action. I do appreciate all developers who contribute to the project and want to foster the cooperative environment. As to the technical point, I honestly don't fully understand the particular patches in every detail, and since Rafael rewrote that part of code recently, I trust him that he is the most knowledgeable person who can make a best technical decision. Being said that, for this particular instance, I wouldn't submit right away but send it to review and explain why I think better. I'm totally fine if someone who knows more than me write a better patch than mine as a result of code review for my patch, but I would be surprised if an alternative is just submitted. I'm not sure if this needs to be reverted, but at least, could you send it review next time in a similar situation, Rafael? > The delay was because of the above mentioned issues. I wanted to make > > sure there was a solid foundation. > > Some patches are quick to review, others take 6 months. If you work in > open source you have *got* to understand that. If you're not willing > to take that cost, than please, refrain from working open source. > > > > Sorry, no. > > I understand your position, but you have to understand mine. I > therefore call into question your ability to care about such an > important project of the LLVM community. > > I sincerely believe that your actions are harming the project, and the > people trying to help. I appreciate the value of your contribution, I > really do, but if you don't change your way to handle open source > contributions, LLD will, whether you like it or not, become irrelevant > and be replaced. > > Such is the nature of open source. > > cheers, > --renato >
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
