njames93 added a comment.

In D101721#2733173 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733173>, @aaron.ballman 
wrote:

> In D101721#2733169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733169>, @njames93 
> wrote:
>
>> However in a few years once we can be confident most users are using 
>> clang-tidy-11 or newer, it may be wise to drop support for 0 and 1 in order 
>> to be inline with yaml completely.
>
> I think if we want to go that route (which seems sensible to me), we should 
> start warning on using anything but true/false as being deprecated. WDYT?

That's sort of the plan, however we shouldn't make that change right away as 
there's no point in issuing warnings at this time. As configurations are 
checked in there is likely to be people still using 10 and previous, which 
don't support the new spelling. This means the config can't be updated and 
users with newer clang-tidy versions will get a warning they can't silence.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to