ldionne added a comment. Thanks for working on this! FWIW, this more or less standardizes what we've been doing in libc++ for the past ~1.5 years and it's been pretty low effort for us to do. And putting my vendor hat on, it's been extremely useful for me to track down potential issues when trying to ship a new version of libc++. This LGTM, although I'm somewhat neutral on whether to post on Discourse as well as having the vendor groups on Phabricator. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of doing both, but I will happily conform if folks see value in it.
================ 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 ---------------- 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). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134878/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134878 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
