oontvoo wrote: > I'm fairly ambivalent about the mechanism used to disable telemetry at build > time, so no complaints here, though I do wonder what the point is: if there's > no concrete implementation of the framework in the build tree, then telemetry > is disabled at build time anyway. I suppose there could be downstream cases > with a telemetry implementation that want to have the option not to build it > at build-time, but in that situation, I don't think we need upstream support. > Maybe I'm missing something though?
I agree! In current state, the upstream telemetry is mostly empty and doesn't collect anything. But I think the worry (from someone who's not familiar with how this is structured) is that they don't know if this would change and that they want clear guarantee for privacy reasons. (Placebo effect, maybe? ) > My only other observation is that we need to be careful about testing, in > that if telemetry is disabled at build time, a class of tests become > impossible to implement. It is disabled but still built. Can we simply not run those tests? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128534 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
