aaron.ballman added a comment. In D129755#3853904 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3853904>, @thesamesam wrote:
> In D129755#3853809 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3853809>, @aaronpuchert > wrote: > >> @aaron.ballman, would like some feedback on the release notes. Should I >> additionally write something under "Potentially Breaking Changes", or is it >> enough to mention this under "Improvements to Clang's diagnostics"? Though I >> guess we could also add this later on if we get more complaints that this >> breaks things. > > I think it's sufficient in "Improvements to Clang's diagnostics". We're not > looking to document every externally observable change in "Potentially > Breaking Changes", IMO. Thanks for asking. We could definitely shift it later > if needed. +1 to this -- I think it's defensible either way. It's not that this is a *breaking* change, but it is a potentially disruptive one. If we get many more folks raising questions about code changes, we can move the release note then. I think what you have now is fine by me. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
