mehdi_amini added a comment. In D58157#1396072 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157#1396072>, @thakis wrote:
> In D58157#1395762 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157#1395762>, @mehdi_amini > wrote: > > > In D58157#1395716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157#1395716>, @rnk wrote: > > > > > I think we have consensus, > > > > > > Based on three comments in a revision? Seems strange to me. > > I don't really care about this, so do whatever you want, but I would > > expect that "consensus" means an actual wider discussion (i.e. llvm-dev + > > cfe-dev). > > > Please cite said discussion for when you added this, as requested above. Sorry, I don't have time to do archeology for you right now. But this is beside the point: your patch is changing a 2 years status quo, so my take on it is that it is *on you* to build the consensus to change this (maybe the consensus exists, I don't know, but this Phabricator diff alone seems quite light to demonstrate evidence of it). > Else, I think this has seen more discussion than the change that is undoing. > It also has the support of several folks very actively working on clang and > clang-tools-extra. Again: I have no incentive to weigh one way or another with respect to what is the right way forward for clang-tools-extra, so I don't care what happens here. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
