arsenm added a comment. In D83088#2348641 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83088#2348641>, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> 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. Unrelated, but I think the test commit process should be dropped > 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. This patch has been up for review for almost 4 months, with a corresponding RFC on llvm-dev. The last review comments were over 2 months ago. Coming back to this so long after to ask for a revert is an unworkable level of review paralysis 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
