rnk added a comment. In D58157#1395762 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157#1395762>, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In D58157#1395716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157#1395716>, @rnk wrote: > > > I think we have consensus, > > > Based on three comments in a revision? Seems strange to me. > I don't really care about this, so do whatever you want, but I would expect > that "consensus" means an actual wider discussion (i.e. llvm-dev + cfe-dev). Well, Sam's comment matters, since he works in the codebase in question. I also think I misread your first comment as being more positive on this. My (incorrect) interpretation was, "we were going to push clang-tools-extra under clang as part of the monorepo reorg, which is why we added this special case in cmake". And, given that we didn't do that reorganization and nobody intends to do it, it seems like the cmake should mirror the current code structure. I'm not trying to approve things under the radar, I just want to expedite things without creating unneeded extra process. And, this change really just keeps us at parity with what we had with svn. We can always revisit the decision to merge the clang tools into clang. This particular change just gives us more options, today. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58157 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
