From: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@gnu.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
nick.alcock@oracle.com,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Plumbers CF MCs
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:59:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r1ju1llu.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=aCn9WqcZe8KgvvZmW0C0nUVL9+sjE_xh0A-ru-995Hg@mail.gmail.com> (Nick Desaulniers's message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:36:03 -0700")
Hi Nick.
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:35 PM Elena Zannoni <elena.zannoni@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/22/21 2:39 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> > Hi Nick.
>> >
>> >> I saw plumbers opened call for microconferences:
>> >> https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2021/index.php/2021/03/18/cfp-open-microconferences/
>> >>
>> >> I was going to put together a submission; do we want to do a combined
>> >> toolchain MC, or have distinct ones this year?
>> >>
>> >> I know in 2020 the GNU cauldron was co-located with Plumbers, as well
>> >> as a GNU Tools Track MC and LLVM MC.
>> > We are actually discussing in another thread about abusing LPC's
>> > hospitality for another GNU Tools Track this year...
>> >
>> > Regarding the micro-conferences, I would be ok with either combined or
>> > separated. I think both approaches have their advantages.
>> >
>> > In either case I'm up for organizing the GNU part.
>>
>> Hi,
>> yes, so, it looks like a GNU toolchain track will happen again this year
>> at LPC (in lieu of the Cauldron conference).
>
> Cool; I generally find these talks of more interest to me personally
> than many of the kernel topics. It's nice to be able to attend (as an
> LLVM developer).
>
>> For the toolchain related MC, we should pick a better name than last
>> year to avoid people getting confused between the MC and the track.
>> Something like "toolchains and kernel intersection" or similar.
>
> Oh, yeah, that's a great idea.
What about "Toolchains and Kernel MC".
>> I am neutral on whether it is with LLVM or separate. I guess it all
>> depends on how long we want the MC to be.
>> If there are enough topics for a double slot, you should request that
>> sooner rather than towards the end, when there might be no extra slots
>> left.
>
> Sure, that sounds good. Maybe we can have a CFP for the proposed MC,
> and if we get enough interesting proposals that it doesn't look like
> we'll be able to accomodate what we'd like, we can split into two MCs
> (if we even need to cross that bridge; maybe we can fit everything
> into the 4hrs for an MC).
I think that is a good plan.
So, how should we proceed? Should I send a MC proposal, or you do it?
:)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-01 8:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-22 20:23 Plumbers CF MCs Nick Desaulniers
2021-03-22 20:39 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2021-03-31 19:34 ` Elena Zannoni
2021-03-31 20:36 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-04-01 7:59 ` Jose E. Marchesi [this message]
2021-04-01 20:01 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-04-01 13:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-01 13:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-01 13:49 ` Elena Zannoni
2021-04-01 15:11 ` Miguel Ojeda
2021-04-01 20:11 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-04-01 13:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-01 13:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-04-01 13:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-23 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-23 8:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-23 19:29 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-03-23 19:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-23 22:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 0:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-24 8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-23 22:23 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-03-24 8:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 11:30 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-04-02 12:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-03-23 22:26 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-03-24 7:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-24 8:47 ` Christian Brauner
2021-03-30 14:13 ` Will Deacon
2021-04-01 7:17 ` Kees Cook
2021-04-02 12:33 ` Segher Boessenkool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87r1ju1llu.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=jemarch@gnu.org \
--cc=christian.brauner@canonical.com \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=elena.zannoni@oracle.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=nick.alcock@oracle.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.