To track security issues, we're starting with the chromium bug tracker
(using the llvm project there).
We considered using Github Security Advisories. However, they are
currently intended as a way for project owners to publicize their
security advisories, and aren't well-suited to reporting issues.
This also moves the issue-reporting paragraph to the beginning of the
document, in part to make it more discoverable, in part to allow the
anchor-linking to actually display the paragraph at the top of the page.
Note that this doesn't update the concrete list of security-sensitive
areas, which is still an open item. When we do, we may want to move the
list of security-sensitive areas next to the issue-reporting paragraph
as well, as it seems like relevant information needed in the reporting
process.
Finally, when describing the discission medium, this splits the topics
discussed into two: the concrete security issues, discussed in the
issue tracker, and the logistics of the group, in our mailing list,
as patches on public lists, and in the monthly sync-up call.
While there, add a SECURITY.md page linking to the relevant paragraph.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100873
Split out the flang and openmp meeting series, as each has a separate
canonical page where the information is maintained.
As part of that, also call out the alias analysis series separately as
it doesn't seem to be relevant for just flang.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99012
This documents current regular LLVM sync-ups that are happening in the
Getting Involved section.
I hope this gives a bit more visibility to regular sync-ups that are
happening in the LLVM community, documenting another way communication
in the community happens.
Of course the downside is that this is another location that sync-up
metadata needs to be maintained. That being said, the structure as
proposed means that no changes are needed once a new sync-up is added,
apart from maybe removing the entry once it becomes clear that that
particular sync-up series is completely cancelled.
Documenting a few pointers on how current sync-ups happen may also
encourage others to organize useful sync-ups on specific topics.
I've started with adding the sync-ups I'm aware of. There's a good
chance I've missed some.
If most sync-ups end up having a public google calendar, we could also
create and maintain a public google calendar that shows all events
happening in the LLVM community, including dev meetings, sync-ups,
socials, etc - assuming that would be valuable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98797
No longer rely on an external tool to build the llvm component layout.
Instead, leverage the existing `add_llvm_componentlibrary` cmake function and
introduce `add_llvm_component_group` to accurately describe component behavior.
These function store extra properties in the created targets. These properties
are processed once all components are defined to resolve library dependencies
and produce the header expected by llvm-config.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90848
As discussed in the mailing list [1-4], we need a separation of support
tiers when requiring support from the whole community versus a
sub-community. Essentially, if a sub-community is active enough and
takes maintenance into their own internal costs without affecting other
parts of the community's maintenance costs, then code that is not
immediately relevant to all parts (ie. not released, actively tested,
etc) can still find its way into the LLVM main repository without major
pain points.
The main benefit is to reduce the maintenance cost that those
sub-communities have outside of LLVM (for example, in duplicating common
code, applying the same patches on top of multiple user repositories or
downstream projects).
This document outlines the components and responsibilities of the
sub-communities with regards to maintenance costs and how they affect
the rest of the community.
It also adds an addendum on removal policies, which expand the existing
"new target removal" policy into something more generic, to encompass
any piece of code, scripts or documents in the repository.
[1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-October/146249.html
[2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146335.html
[3] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-October/146138.html
[4] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146298.html
Summary:
Proposal and roadmap towards vector predication in LLVM.
This patch documents that
a) It is recognized that current LLVM is ill-equipped for vector predication.
b) The community is working on a solution.
c) A concrete prototype exists in the VP extension (D57504).
Reviewers: rkruppe, rengolin, cameron.mcinally, SjoerdMeijer, andrew.w.kaylor, craig.topper, sdesmalen, k-ishizaka, lattner, fhahn
Reviewed By: andrew.w.kaylor
Subscribers: rogfer01, merge_guards_bot, simoncook, s.egerton, llvm-commits, efocht
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73889
Adds a new page for existing Getting Involved, Development Process, and Community Proposals articles. Also moves Mailing Lists, Meetups and social events, and IRC sections.
llvm-svn: 372487
