Re: Clang/LLVM migration roadmap

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

> On 14 Feb 2022, at 16:38, Xavier Brochard <xavier@alternatif.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone
> 
> By reading this discussion, I was thinking there is a problem that no one 
> talk about. This email from Riccardo is a good starting point:
> 
> Le 14.02.2022 00:11, Riccardo Mottola a écrit :
>> But what is a user? I can think at least of two types.
>> 1) User of GNUstep libraries because user of GNUstep applications.
>> 2) User of GNUstep because he writes GNUstep applications,
> 
> I would say  "User of GNUstep because he writes GNUstep applications *because 
> there is users*.
> 
> This Clang/LLVM migration looks like a lot of work for a small team.

Yes, a migration sounds like a lot of work, but the use of the term 'migration' 
was accidentally misleading.

This is not talking about migrating code that exists, rather about changing 
what we target/prefer for adding new code/features.

So the actual work discussed is either contributing to GCC to give it the 
features we want or improving/widening portability of Clang/libobj2, which 
don't effect the existing code.

Even so, it *is* a lot of work, but either route improves things for gnustep 
users.


All that being said, I agree with most of your points about there being plenty 
of scope for non-coders to contribute other stuff, and like the idea of having 
road-maps for those sorts of things.