From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Fri Oct 4 15:55:08 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CCC131BD0 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46lDwX2DNhz4VwF for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 4C6BA131BCF; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2FF131BCE for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46lDwX1MY4z4VwC for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D7A268BE for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x94Ft7Ow007560 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:07 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x94Ft7js007557 for x11@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:55:07 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 239682] Default to devel/llvm90 when libLLVM/libclang are required or if /usr/bin/clang is not enough Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:55:05 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:55:08 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239682 --- Comment #25 from Jan Beich --- (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #24) > when the llvm developers tell you it isn't ready, it isn't ready. Release happens when "the llvm developers" decide something "is ready" for = wide consumption. > When the graphics folks tell you it isn't ready, it isn't ready. Before you've started with FUD they were silent for the whole duration. x11@ was in CC as requested in Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk. > If it's not ready, timing doesn't matter. Please start listening to your = peers. Assignee decides when patch "is ready" to land. At the time there were no blockers and maintainer timeout was reached. After landing all regressions = were promptly fixed. I don't think I've made any mistakes. > Bland assertions that we need to do this, Assignee decides what work and how it's done. There were several issues (confusion and blind spots) but it's a net positive. I'll try to do better = in future. > or that a week is enough time are flat out wrong. 2019-09-20 (landing) - 2019-08-06 (review request) =3D 45 days. > This really needs to be backed out Why? I need a technical rationale. > and you need to adopt a more conservative approach to pushing things in. Provide more details, including how to treat bad actors. My approach works = fine elsewhere i.e., wherever the graphics team is not involved. > You are literally making a lot of people very mad at you for not > listening to them. I'm awaiting brooks@ reply to shed light on what led to planning/prioritiza= tion failure. Otherwise, it looks like a one-off misunderstanding. > There's a lot of smart people in the project, and when they are mad > at you for how you've done something, it pays to listen. They are > almost certainly right. I do listen but don't blindly follow unless requested by the authority in charge. "Smart people" is ambiguous term, those who excel at coding may not= be good at negotiating. Obviously, you have a lot more such experience but the current attitude falls short. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=