banach-space wrote: Having multiple active PR's for one change is IMHO rather confusing. It creates unnecessary duplication - why do we expect people to review the same change twice? As a case in point:
> Since we are making this change now, should this PR be updated to follow > clang's scheme of having clang point to clang-$version? That was already included in #74377. It is absolutely secondary who commits this change (just acknowledging that there are two implementations). However, please make sure that: * there is a well documented transition period during which `flang-new` is still available as a sym-link (please define _when_ such transition period would end), * we use this as an opportunity to improve Flang's consistency with Clang (please introduce `flang-$version`), * this change does not break Flang's buildbots and all customers are well supported throughout the renaming (there might be a stream of bug reports following this), * community members who contributed to the previous PRs for this (either through code, reviews or testing) are aware that the discussion has moved here and all changes have been attributed accordingly. Thank you all for working on this! 🙏🏻 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110023 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
