nhaehnle added a comment. Hi Mehdi, this is not an appropriate place for this discussion. Yes, we have a general rule that patches can be reverted if they're obviously broken (e.g. build bot problems) or clearly violate some other standard. This is a good rule, but it doesn't apply here. If you think it does, please state your case in the email thread that I've started on llvm-dev for this very purpose. Just one thing:
> - the burden of convincing of the approach is on the patch author, reverting > is forcing the discussion here. I was trying to have this conversation. I am more than happy to have it, and I would be happy for me people to participate! But what can I do if the only(!) person who voices concerns just goes into radio silence, and the total number of people who participate is small in any case, despite raising it on llvm-dev as well? It is in fact the decision to **not** revert the change which is apparently required to force the discussion! P.S.: It's easy to miss on Phabricator, but there is already a long stack of patches which build on this. In a way this is a good thing because it can inform the discussion, but I will hold off from pushing more for now even though many of them have already been accepted. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
