lebedev.ri added a comment. In D55170#1436732 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55170#1436732>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > The cost is financial, as it's developer time, which costs real money to > > companies. In the end, to support this, people like myself who are doing > > this as part of their job spend time that they'd otherwise spend to make > > other things better that might be more important. > > Don't get me wrong I totally appreciate what you do, > > But what you mean is it costs your employer. That I understand, but not all > of us are doing this on behalf of a company (more specially not yours), so > you could also say that your employer benefits the other way from those > contributors who give their time without them having to spend a dime. This is not a good argument. It only considers the one-time cost of adding one particular thing. It does not consider the cost it incurs on the codebase. There are likely always ways to implement the same external side-effects in a way that has near-zero new cost, and ways to implement it in a way that completely shatters any hope for any further changes. It is vitally important to avoid the latter. > I guess my question would be, should the cost to your employer really come > into the decision about whether something goes in or not? Other than of > course we are totally grateful to them for giving us so much of your time, > but that shouldn't have impact on what is worthy to go in should it? or am I > wrong? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55170/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55170 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
