As a meta-note, your comments are coming across in a very hostile way, in case you didn&#x27;t intend them that way.<p>In an open source project, the best expectation is to play by the rules of the existing project and try to integrate your changes in the way that works well with it.  There&#x27;s no One True Open Source way - there are a lot of projects, each with their own cultures.<p>What Google&#x27;s done is take an internally developed thingy and transition it to LLVM.  That&#x27;s a pretty non-trivial effort for any company.  I don&#x27;t see why having it be open source has any requirement for a dump of the internal version.  Earlier commenters noted already that a large fraction of the code is <i>already</i> present in LLVM and has been streaming in for some time now, so -- why the hostility?<p>Collectively, I don&#x27;t think &quot;our&quot; (the wider community) goal is necessarily to have a bunch of junk forks out there that can&#x27;t be compiled or used.  Working, thoughtfully contributed code is much more likely to be widely used and have a big impact, and that&#x27;s a standard we should be happy if companies meet.  LLVM isn&#x27;t a quick hack project - it&#x27;s a foundational bit of tech that millions of people depend on directly or indirectly, and that millions of people benefit from improvements to.