aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst:140 + +* After the change has been committed to the repository, the potentially + disruptive changes described in the release notes should be posted to the ---------------- ldionne wrote: > I wonder whether `Announcements` is truly a lower-traffic alternative to > `vendors` groups, if we end up posting each potentially breaking change to > the list and tagging vendors on each such review. I'm not against posting on > Discourse, however it seems to me like basically another equivalent channel > of communication for these changes (which might be beneficial, I'm neutral on > that). The reason we have a split like that is for timing and chattiness. If you're a downstream like Intel has with ICX, you might want to be in `clang-vendors` so that you are involved in conversations about potentially breaking changes. You'll be getting emails for all review comments on that review. But if you're a downstream like a Gentoo package maintainer, you might not want to be *that* involved in the development of the compiler, but still want to know when changes are coming down the pipeline to do early pre-release testing while there's still time to put the brakes on before a release goes out. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134878/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134878 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
