dblaikie added a comment. In D109345#2986297 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109345#2986297>, @thopre wrote:
> Is there no way to split this patch further? It's going to be hard finding > someone who can review something so big. If there's no way to split it in > incremental changes, you could perhaps split per subsystem only for review > and refer to this diff for CI as well as when landing. The long migration path would be to do this one function at. time (I did a whole cluster of functions in MemoryBuffer for consistency - this does reduce total code changes somewhat, since some of those APIs are used in similar contexts (eg: branches of a conditional operator - so having them differ means more revisions to those call sites)) and probably introducing separate names for the Expected versions of the functions, migrating call sites incrementally, then doing a mechanical rename at the end of all that. I don't think it's probably worth that level of granularity - it's a fairly mechanical patch as it is. Mostly I sent this out as an FYI and to get feedback on the general direction - whether folks thought it was worth doing at all, and if they feel strongly it should be done another way (like the incremental ones above) - but I don't think it needs a /huge/ amount of scrutiny, review by separate code owners, etc. I'd generally be comfortable committing this as other cross-project cleanup/refactoring like function renaming, etc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109345/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109345 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
