phosek added a comment. In D58317#1404966 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317#1404966>, @smeenai wrote:
> In D58317#1404961 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317#1404961>, @phosek wrote: > > > In D58317#1400223 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317#1400223>, @smeenai wrote: > > > > > I'm not entirely happy with the name clang-dev-headers, and am open to > > > suggestions. It's unfortunate clang-headers was already taken for > > > something different, but renaming that target or increasing its scope > > > seems bad for existing users. Other possibilities I thought of include > > > clang-tooling-headers, though that might be confused with the headers for > > > libTooling specifically, and clang-library-headers. I'm open to > > > suggestions. > > > > > > We could consider renaming `clang-headers` to e.g. `clang-resource-headers` > > and then reusing the name which would match `llvm-headers`. What do you > > think about that? > > > I like that, but I'm worried about breaking existing users of the > clang-headers target (e.g. in their build scripts or distributions). I could > post on cfe-dev and wait for dissent/consensus, I guess, but if there's an > option which doesn't involve breaking backward compatibility, maybe that's > preferable. I'd give it a try, if there's a pushback then I'd prefer to go with `clang-library-headers`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58317 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
