Stream: t-compiler

Topic: planning meeting 2020.05.08


pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 13:32, on Zulip):

Hey @T-compiler/meeting -- we'll be starting our planning meeting (for the design meeting schedule over next 3 weeks) in about 28 minutes

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix are you driving or am I ? :)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

Hello @T-compiler/meeting! Welcome to today's planning meeting. Please :wave: to show you're here. To give folks time to gather, let's start out with 5 minutes for

Announcements

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:06, on Zulip):

hi sorry for being late

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

I have a hackmd I made that summaries the survey responses

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

https://hackmd.io/gv41a48mRb-KV4SoJ0nXCA?view

nagisa (May 08 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Not a planning thing, but we finally landed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/55617/ Took us just 1 1/2 year and 3 people.

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

I was going to say, it's definitely been more than 1/5 year

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

that's awesome!

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):

oh and

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:10, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

feel free to expand with PRs, I'd like to have pages we can easily reference for people when explaining things...:)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

I'm particularly interested in feedback around review policies

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

I think we have some "obvious but informal" rules and I'd like to know if there are others I missed

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

anyway, let's get started?

nagisa (May 08 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix on a quick skim I was able to find most of the concerns I myself raised; good job on summarizing.

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

@nagisa its obviously a bit disorganized at the moment

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:12, on Zulip):

We have I think 5 pending meeting proposals -- and one that took place but nobody wrote up any summary yet (compiler-team#267)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

I guess I'll create a poll -- if you can't vote in poll b/c mobile, find a computer :P

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

(or leave comments :)

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

yeah sorry I should have written up a summary of compiler-team#267

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:13, on Zulip):

/poll Which meetings should we consider for this round of scheduling?

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(the basic outcome of compiler-team#267 is that "we" decided to try out taking on some T-libs impl duties, on a trial period.)

XAMPPRocky (May 08 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(@nikomatsakis how did you do that?)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

(@XAMPPRocky /poll Foo)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

but I think the mobile client still doesn't support them :( we should bug zulip about it :)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

or maybe someone motivated should contribute a PR...

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

So regarding the survey overview...

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

I do think it's a good thing to talk about, but not if it's just "Recapitualate what's in the hackmd"

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

I didn't put a vote on compiler-team#288 because, while I think it is important, I think it can wait until the next cycle

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

I guess the idea would be to narrow down and group the themes, and kind of have a retrospective-style discussion on a few of them, yes?

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

although maybe compiler-team#288 is more important than compiler-team#281 ? not sure.

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

I didn't put a vote on compiler-team#288 because, while I think it is important, I think it can wait until the next cycle

yes I was saying that to Niko that can wait

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

re: compiler-team#288, @Santiago Pastorino and I were talking a bit and felt the same, I also suspect we could just create an MCP and try experimenting a bit

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

I thnk it'd be good to get some technical grist to discuss

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

I didn't vote for the roadmap because, that should come after survey overview and discussion?

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

in my opinion is very important but it's also important to gather and process the survey before I guess

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

I definitely agree any roadmap discussion should come after survey overview

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

interesting, I didn't think that they were that related

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

but I guess that's silly on my part

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

@Santiago Pastorino is your thinking that, since they are both non-technical, that we would not handle them both in the same planning cycle?

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

ahh ok, that doesn't mean I should abstain my vote there I guess?

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

I'd like to know a bit more about what interaction you two foresee between them

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Santiago Pastorino is your thinking that, since they are both non-technical, that we would not handle them both in the same planning cycle?

my thinking is just, I guess the survey would provide valuable data and decisions that would influence the roadmap

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

I could imagine, for example, that it helps inform "how much" we think we want to do

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

so I think the survey results inform our roadmap choices

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

ok

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

@Santiago Pastorino right, I agree with that.

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

my question was more like

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

we typically only allot one meeting per cycle for non-technical stuff

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

the intent was

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

Maybe we could handle both survey and roadmap in one meeting? Is that a silly idea?

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

a minimum of one meeting per cycle

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

not a maximum

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

Oh!

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

heh

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

in particular there was a concern that we would just stop doing the "less technical" sort of things and neglect it

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

okay then don't mind me

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

so I put in a reserved slot :)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:20, on Zulip):

anyway, we're scheduling

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Maybe we could handle both survey and roadmap in one meeting? Is that a silly idea?

hmm unsure if it's a good idea, my guess is that after discussing survey would be a lot to process so I wouldn't jump to discuss the roadmap right after

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Maybe we could handle both survey and roadmap in one meeting? Is that a silly idea?

I think one meeting is not good

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

I think we'll need some time to think

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

okay cool

nagisa (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

So there’s (just?) one thing out of the 4 with votes that we need to decide not to schedule :slight_smile:

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

so the top votes are (in order)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

we could just do the top 3, and then the question becomes in what order

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

well

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

hmm

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I'm wondering if I should switch my vote

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

between compiler-team#281 and compiler-team#288

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

in terms of which is more important to handle first

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I do think that for the codegen unit partitioning (cc @Wesley Wiser) it'd be good to try and kick off some brainstorming ahead of time and sketch out more concretely the problems and space of solutions, to help steer the conversation in a productive direction

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

I guess compiler-team#281 just sounds "more fun"

nagisa (May 08 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

Given the discussion above it is pretty clear to me that survey needs to come before roadmap

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis but that shouldn't stop us from scheduling a meeting, just later in this cycle, no?

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

yes, the ordering of

would work, and leaves 2 weeks to ponder for roadmap (and also for lang-team discussions to evolve a bit), or the alterative is

nagisa (May 08 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

Yeah, I definitely felt that the partitioning proposal was pretty abstract and we’d have a fairly handwavy meeting if we just started discussing the problem.

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

I could see waiting on that until we "firm up" the proposal

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

and either having a "week off"

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

or doing the area discussion

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

so, honest question:

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

the area discussion

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

well maybe I should read its hackmd

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

my initial reaction is "does this benefit from being a synchronous one hour meeting?"

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

well, so,

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

but it probably needs general consensus

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

so that's why it benefits

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

hmm

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

The details of how its implemented, though

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I also thought there might be some tweaks

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

to the deatils

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

that can be handled solely by wg-meta

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

like, good ideas

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

its just the high level breakdown of the areas themselves and the leads for each

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

that needs consensus, right?

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

and because I think it maybe informs a bit how we work and think of ourselves, at least in the more far-reaching variants, it ought to be talked over

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I guess it depends on what do we really want to accomplish with it, one could think that this proposes some kind of a structure for the team

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

well, I think talking about what the leads do

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

in the sense that we have areas and leads

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

(Or do we need to discuss first whether its even a good idea to adopt the proposed structure?)

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

but unsure if we want to tackle that too

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I feel like you could almost post what you have as a PR and let people comment changes in the GH Review

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

so here is what I think

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I think we should spend a bit more time on the areas thing

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

to tighten up the questions we want answered

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

(if any)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

from a sync discussion

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

and I sort of feel the same about the codegen unit partitioning

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

so I am wondering if saying

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

Re cgu meeting: I think part of the issue is that neither @oli nor I have any idea what to do about it and mw seemed to be the expert in this area. Part of our goal with the meeting was to just figure out who knows about it, who could do reviews and if there are any ideas floating around in somebody's head that they just haven't had time/desire to implement.

I think that could certainly be done async before the meeting but getting discussion on complex topics like that asynchronously is sometimes really hard.

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

is it possible to have both things in 1h sync meeting?

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

@Santiago Pastorino I think I'd prefer to keep them separate

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

in particular, I think there may be people who are very interested in one topic and not the other

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

I agree that async conversations like that can be quite hit or miss

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

and part of the goal of scheduling the design meetings like this was to allow people to opt out of the meetings that are not relevant to them (right?)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

yes

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

@Wesley Wiser do you think at least preparing a summary of the problems you are talking about is plausible?

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

if not any idea of the solutions

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

Hmm... I thought the gist I wrote kind of covered that...

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

maybe I missed it

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

/me re-reads

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

oh, the gist

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

yeah sorry!

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

I forget there was a gist :P

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

lol, yeah, this is kind of exactly the thing

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

Ah ok. Maybe I should I have highlighted that more.

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I'm just unaccustomed to people doing so much prep ;)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

it's great

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

you know

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

based on my review of the survey results

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I have to admit that the two drivers that come to mind are

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

Driver 1: { "lack of ownership", "lack of focus" } ==> we should prioritize Areas of Compiler meeting

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

Driver 2: building Rustc is slow ==> maybe we prioritize CGU meeting

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

but really, it seems silly because we have no idea how much the CGU meeting will help with that problem

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Driver 1: { "lack of ownership", "lack of focus" } ==> we should prioritize Areas of Compiler meeting

my conclusion from this was prioritize roadmap (which is partly why I was surprised)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

but

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

oh sure, roadmap is important too. (To address "lack of vision" from survey)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I think that for the roadmap discussion to be best, it prob needs more prepwork, so I am happy doing survey first

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I just meant in terms of choosing whether, if at all, to do a third meeting from the remaining two proposals

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I am leaning towards

(in that order)

and to circulate the areas draft for more async discussion

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I think that's a good point @pnkfelix. I think @oli both feel wg-mir-opt is starting to hit a wall with regards to compilation times. Fixing the cgu thing won't automatically make rustc faster (probably) but it will at least unblock us and let us keep moving forward with MIR optimizations.

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I have follow-up questions regarding CGU stuff, but I don't want to go into weeds here. Where is best place for such discussion?

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

i.e. is there a pre-existing Zulip topic you can link me to?

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

zulip thread per meeting proposal, perhaps, like we do for mcp?

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

No, but I think a topic in t-compiler is probably fine

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

zulip thread per meeting proposal, perhaps, like we do for mcp?

oh we should totally do that for meeting proposals

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

OK, do we have consensus on

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

lets get that fired off, maybe right after this meeting ends

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

Then I move to adjourn the meeting..second? :)

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

seconded

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

/me getting all roberts-rules-of-order-y

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

ha, I was wondering what the right emoji was

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

how is there not a gavel emoji....

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

zulip thread per meeting proposal, perhaps, like we do for mcp?

(should these threads live under #t-compiler/major changes , or under #t-compiler ...?)

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

how is there not a "WHY? TELL ME WHY??" emoji

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

I would make it #t-compiler/meeting proposals

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

personally I find t-compiler gets "really full"

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

oh wow, a new stream just for this? Heh

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

okay

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

I do agree that #t-compiler gets really full

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

I would make it #t-compiler/meeting proposals

how about #t-compiler/planning ?

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

maybe I'm opting for too general a name ...

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

if we are adding we can also have a #t-compiler/meetings where general compiler meetings happen :)

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

/poll where should these Zulip threads go

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

FWIW we have #t-compiler/major changes not #t-compiler/major change proposals

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

yeah, that's why I felt comfortable suggesting it above. But, to be fair, not all design meetings are about major changes

Wesley Wiser (May 08 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

I just meant the naming of "{noun} proposals" vs just "{noun}"

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):

oh I see

Santiago Pastorino (May 08 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

I think #t-compiler/meetings is nice because would be easier to go and look for last weekly meeting and things like that when one needs that

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

so clearly it should be #t-compiler/designs :wink:

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

or #t-compiler/steers

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

Okay I'll go with #t-compiler/meetings

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

I've actually thought about adding a stream for meetings

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

instead of using dedicated topics

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

er, that is

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

still dedicated topics, but in their own stream

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

one thing is that

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

I think the actual meeting should be in a different topic from "pre-discussion" about the proposal

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

(probably?)

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

I think it'd be good to at least allow opening the prior discussion in a tab w/o distractions

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

and several topics are nice for that

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

yes, this is the idea

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

I also think continuing in the topic makes it seem like you should've participated in the prior discussion somehow, at least to me

nikomatsakis (May 08 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

(and I don't think that's necessarily the expectation)

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

I can definitely see it at least feeling like you should read it

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

which is not true, imo

simulacrum (May 08 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

like, we should summarize all prior discussion before the meeting

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 15:43, on Zulip):

okay, I created #t-compiler/meetings and created topics within it for four proposals.

pnkfelix (May 08 2020 at 15:43, on Zulip):

I left out the llvm.side-effect meeting proposal, for now at least

Last update: May 29 2020 at 15:45UTC