phillip.power added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305#262534, @xazax.hun wrote:
> - Should we require the generation of old hashes once a change is introduced, > or should we expect users who rely on old hash to maintain the old hash > generation as an out of tree patch? I will likely release the analyzer with all the previous hashes generated by default. I am happy to enable old hashes out of tree, as long as enabling is a small change. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305#262534, @xazax.hun wrote: > - The hash calculation WILL change in the near future once we figured out how > to identify checkers properly (but I think it will not make sense to rename > the hash for this change). For this reason I think we should mark this > feature as experimental, until that change is introduced. What is the > recommended way, to do that? Generating a comment to the plist? Just adding a > comment to the headers? Only mention it in the commit log? How close is "the near future"? I would like to start using the hashing feature in the next couple of weeks. If your checker identification improvements are a long time out, I would like you to submit the current hash as non-experimental. Best regards, Phillip SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
