erichkeane added a comment. In D69764#2934489 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934489>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> In D69764#2934378 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934378>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> I've just been watching this from the sideline, but the cases where this >> breaks code are unacceptable for this tool, it is a complete direction >> change for the tool, and making that direction change silently on a review >> of a 15 month patch, where TWO code owners have said 'no' for that reason is >> absurd. >> >> I use this tool daily as a part of my 'upload' script, having it silently >> bust code between when I validate it and when I upload it is terrible, and >> makes the tool unusable for my purposes. If we change this direction >> without a full RFC, my next step is going to be an RFC to remove >> clang-format from the check-in requirements of the entire LLVM project. > > Can I just say, marking this review as requiring changes, I presume because > you don't agree with it conceptually isn't very helpful to the consensus > building process, unless you have an inline comment of something you think is > wrong. What changes are you requesting? > > F18452578: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F18452578> > > I've tried to find compromises to mitigate peoples strong views, I know this > is contentious, I've not tried to rush it in. I am a major contributor to > clang-format, and I'd like to continue to move it forward.. > > as @klimek mentioned I'm one of the people really trying to help look after > clang-format, I wouldn't do anything that I think damages it or its > reputation, but I think there is value in this and other proposed changes. I > know some people disagree but we also have to recognise that some agree too! > > A "no" is a "no for everyone", a "yes" is a "yes and no" based on the > configuration, I know what I think is the fairer approach. My 'requires changes' is that this needs an LLVM-project-level RFC to change the charter of one of its projects, doing so in a 15 month long patch, against the wishes of TWO maintainers is a violation of the LLVM community practice. I'm completely willing to disagree-and-commit here once that happens, but allowing this patch in without that decision being made intentionally by the project seems like a violation of trust. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
