erichkeane added a comment. In D69764#2934535 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934535>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
>> 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. > > Ok, thats fair and thank you for verbalising what the changes are. I'm not > closed to the idea of the RFC just didn't want to go down that road if it > just ended up with 2 opposing views and not getting to a conclusion. > > I will challenge a couple of things: > > 1. I'm not sure there is currently a "charter" that says we won't modify the > contents of a TU, and actually in my view that has already changed when we > added. (include sorting, namespace comments, javascript requoter, trailing > comment inserter). > > 2. I agree if we want to use this as formalising that "change" in charter > then I'm ok to try via the RFC but I think we'll get 2 very opposing views, > and likely no concencus. So I don't want to just cause a rift in the > community any more than this is already. For better or worse, RFCs are our way of changing these things. RFCs definitely succeed after discussion sometimes. _I_ would be completely against this patch unless some level of community consensus was formed via RFC, and I believe a few others above have made the same point. > 3. As for the "TWO maintainers", I don't deny their extremely excellent > contributions, far greater than mine could ever be. But in fairness they are > not frequent maintainers here! On the other hand I am and have been for a > number of years. When @djasper and @klimek stepped back a bit, I've really > tried to help by filling even a little, the void of their enormous shoes. > > I can't even think of emulating all those peoples amazing efforts, but I do > this in my free time as I assume other do, and I like to think there is value > in me continuing to improve and debug clang-format. I was referring to @rsmith and @aaron.ballman (to clarify), both are maintainers in 'clang', the former of which is the 'superset' maintainer of this format project based on its directory. While Aaron is a peer-maintainer to this project, his contributions are immense, and his points are too-well-reasoned and motivated to be dismissed. > So I'd like to think my view isn't disregarded just because others with more > muscle disagree, I mean I assumed this was at least a democracy where we > could find a fair concencus. It _IS_ a democracy where we can find a fair consensus! And the mechanism with which to obtain said `fair consensus` is an RFC. 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
