aaron.ballman added a comment. In D114025#3140161 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114025#3140161>, @martong wrote:
> Do we have a comprehensive list of non-inclusive terms and their inclusive > correspondent somewhere available? > I mean `master` -> `main`, `white list` -> `inclusive list`, `sanity` -> > `validation`, ... > I'd assume that we go through that list, and that could give me a clue of how > many such patches to expect in the future. > > Also, I was wondering that in list perhaps we could provide why we consider a > term non-inclusive. Maybe it is just me but why is `sanity` considered > non-inclusive? https://gist.github.com/seanmhanson/fe370c2d8bd2b3228680e38899baf5cc has a pretty reasonable explanation about why `sanity` is problematic. In D114025#3140204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114025#3140204>, @lebedev.ri wrote: > How dare you question our world's new overlords. This is not a particularly constructive comment... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114025/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114025 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
