Re: [lld] r271569 - Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64.
On 2 June 2016 at 20:49, Rafael Espindola via llvm-commits wrote: > Author: rafael > Date: Thu Jun 2 14:49:53 2016 > New Revision: 271569 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271569&view=rev > Log: > Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64. > > This is mostly extracted from http://reviews.llvm.org/D18960. Rafael, Why commit part of Adhemerval's patch without reviewing his request? This is a really serious breach of community trust. Not only we're waiting for reviews on the TLS set of patches and having to rebase every two weeks, but now you implemented in a way that wasn't discussed on the review, didn't mention authorship, nor asked Adhemerval for any input. If you had technical input on his patch, you should have done on the review. If you wanted him to split in smaller patches, you should have asked on the review and let *him* do it. Even if you were the code owner (which you're not), it would still be a *serious* breach of trust and respect. I hereby respectfully request that you revert your patch and let Adhemerval finish the work that he started in the way that we normally do in the LLVM community. regards, --renato ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Re: [lld] r271569 - Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64.
On 2 June 2016 at 23:22, Rafael Espíndola 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. > 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
Re: [lld] r271569 - Start adding tlsdesc support for aarch64.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 2 June 2016 at 23:22, Rafael Espíndola > 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
