aaron.ballman added a comment. In D101721#2733260 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733260>, @njames93 wrote:
> In D101721#2733173 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733173>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D101721#2733169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721#2733169>, @njames93 >> wrote: >> >>> However in a few years once we can be confident most users are using >>> clang-tidy-11 or newer, it may be wise to drop support for 0 and 1 in order >>> to be inline with yaml completely. >> >> I think if we want to go that route (which seems sensible to me), we should >> start warning on using anything but true/false as being deprecated. WDYT? > > That's sort of the plan, however we shouldn't make that change right away as > there's no point in issuing warnings at this time. As configurations are > checked in there is likely to be people still using 10 and previous, which > don't support the new spelling. This means the config can't be updated and > users with newer clang-tidy versions will get a warning they can't silence. That makes sense to me. Should we file a bug to suggest adding the deprecation warning in Clang 14(?) and planned removal in Clang 16(?) so that we don't lose track of this? (I have no firm opinion about which versions we decide to start deprecating and remove so long as they're not disruptive.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101721 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
