mehdi_amini added a comment. In D83088#2347111 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088#2347111>, @arsenm wrote:
> In D83088#2346322 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088#2346322>, @mehdi_amini > wrote: > >> In D83088#2345540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088#2345540>, @nhaehnle wrote: >> >>> David, I don't think this is appropriate here. Let's take the discussion to >>> llvm-dev. >> >> Seems like David asked to revert in the meantime? > > -1 to reverting, which will just make the history messier with no tangible > benefit This is the usual LLVM policy I believe: someone expressed a concern and ask to revert. We revert and discuss first. So again: please revert. The messier history is not an argument: we revert so many times for any random bot failures already, and our contribution guidelines still tell people to push a "fake commit" with a whitespace change to test their access. I also see tangile benefits: - we don't start building dependencies on newly introduced API making a revert more difficult later. - the burden of convincing of the approach is on the patch author, reverting is forcing the discussion here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
