From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F14C433B4 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66340610CA for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230284AbhDAH7i (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:59:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46546 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229612AbhDAH7h (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:59:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F3E5C0613E6 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 00:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRsEl-0006xL-UK; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 03:59:32 -0400 Received: from [141.143.193.74] (port=22056 helo=termi.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lRsEk-0001o6-36; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 03:59:31 -0400 From: "Jose E. Marchesi" To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Elena Zannoni , Steven Rostedt , linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux , Kees Cook , Florian Weimer , Christian Brauner , nick.alcock@oracle.com, Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: Plumbers CF MCs References: <87o8fa3oua.fsf@gnu.org> <403153ed-7953-c42e-40a2-6ad313acd661@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:59:25 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Nick Desaulniers's message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:36:03 -0700") Message-ID: <87r1ju1llu.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org Hi Nick. > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:35 PM Elena Zannoni 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? :)