chrish_ericsson_atx added a comment. In D112374#3653967 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374#3653967>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> I don't. I think reverting your change was well within the guidelines > outlined by LLVM's patch reversion policy: > https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patch-reversion-policy > > Additionally, I think you could've given me a little bit more time to catch > up on the discussion here. The code review policy and practices > (https://llvm.org/docs/CodeReview.html#code-reviews-speed-and-reciprocity) > recommend pinging every few days to once per week depending on how urgent the > patch is. > > By relanding, you broke the bots again > (https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/45354/#showFailuresLink) > and I'm forced to revert this change a second time. Please refrain from > landing this again until we've settled on a way forward. I agree with @JDevlieghere here. In general, it's reasonable that the patch was reverted when it was found to break other things in the LLVM project, and reasonable to expect the original author's cooperation in resolving that breakage before the patch gets reapplied--especially when the patch is as large and far-reaching as this one is. As an aside, this also patch breaks one of our internal tidy checkers. Likely the fix we'll need for that checker is simple, but it'll take a bit of research for me to understand what needs to happen in our internal code. Thanks for your patience and willingness to help your colleagues understand and adapt to the change you've authored. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
