[docs] Add documentation for LLVM Qualification Group #145331
Conversation
|
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project! This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified. If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page. If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers. If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide. You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums. |
|
Thanks for this, Wendi! I think that it would be good to schedule a ~monthly meetup for this group as @kbeyls suggested in the RFC. The reason is, it's a lot easier to justify ratifying a group that's currently meeting. I've also asked on the LLVM Discord for some suitable reviewers for this PR (with a link to the RFC as well.) |
|
New commits after initial one:
|
I don't have the appropriate permissions to merge. |
|
@uwendi Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project! Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR. Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues. How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here. If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again. If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done! |
This patch adds a new document describing the LLVM Qualification Group, modeled after the Security Group documentation. The goal is to create an open working group focused on enabling LLVM use in safety-critical applications, such as those requiring ISO 26262 qualification. The group is intended to be non-enforcing and collaborative, and to act as a public coordination point for contributors working on safety-relevant concerns in LLVM. See: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-establish-a-safety-group-in-llvm/86916 In this review, I’d really appreciate your feedback on both the overall structure and wording, especially if anything could be made clearer, more balanced, or more aligned with LLVM’s values and documentation tone. What feels right? What could be improved to better reflect LLVM community expectations? --------- Co-authored-by: Wendi Urribarri (Woven by Toyota <wendi.urribarri@woven-planet.global>
This patch adds a new document describing the LLVM Qualification Group, modeled after the Security Group documentation. The goal is to create an open working group focused on enabling LLVM use in safety-critical applications, such as those requiring ISO 26262 qualification.
The group is intended to be non-enforcing and collaborative, and to act as a public coordination point for contributors working on safety-relevant concerns in LLVM.
See: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-proposal-to-establish-a-safety-group-in-llvm/86916
In this review, I’d really appreciate your feedback on both the overall structure and wording, especially if anything could be made clearer, more balanced, or more aligned with LLVM’s values and documentation tone. What feels right? What could be improved to better reflect LLVM community expectations?