zturner added a comment. I will move most of this back to `ClangASTContext`, but I want to state again that I would like to reach a point where downstream merge issues are not even a topic that comes up in code reviews. I see many huge refactors coming through from people that do not go up for review, do not ask about other peoples' downstream build issues or how it affects them, and are not discussed in the open before going through.
So I do not want there to be a double standard. Either everyone needs to run every change by everyone in the community before committing anything, or we adopt the LLVM policy of post commit review and downstream maintainers handling their downstream problems silently. It is not fair to even mention the issue of downstream merge issues, because it stifles improvements to code health (even if they are minor improvements), when LLVM has a clear policy that downstream problems are not the upstream's problem. I'm fine working together and compromising or whatever, but I am pretty strongly opposed to rejecting changes that improve code health because of someone's merge problems. That needs to be an issue that is dealt with downstream -- and more importantly not even mentioned as a point of discussion in the upstream. With that said, I will undo most of these changes (but continue writing the unittests) http://reviews.llvm.org/D18530 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
