aaron.ballman added a comment. In D53751#1301551 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53751#1301551>, @shafik wrote:
> I think these changes make sense at a high level but I am not sure about the > refactoring strategy. I am especially concerned we may end up in place where > all the effected users of the API don't get updated and we are stuck with > this parallel API. I didn't actually see this comment get addressed other than to say it won't be a problem in practice, which I'm not certain I agree with. Was there a reason why this got commit before finding out if the reviewer with the concern agrees with your rationale? FWIW, I share the concern that having parallel APIs for any length of time is a dangerous thing. Given that "almost ready to go" is not "ready to go" but there's not an imminent release, I don't understand the rush to commit this. When is the renaming and removal of the old API expected take place? Days? Weeks? Months? Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D53751/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D53751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
