MyDeveloperDay added a comment. In D33029#1423947 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D33029#1423947>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D33029#1423944 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D33029#1423944>, @MyDeveloperDay > wrote: > > > Adding the unit tests lets us see how this option will work in various > > cases, it will let us understand that its not breaking anything else. > > > > I personally don't like to see revisions like this sit for 2 years with > > nothing happening, I don't see anything wrong with this that would prevent > > it going in so I don't understand whats blocking it?, > > > > if you had some tests and a release note I'd give it a LGTM (but as I've > > said before I'm not the code owner, but someone wanting to address defects > > and add capabilities. but I think we need to be able to move forward, > > people will object soon enough if they don't like it.) > > > > Generally I don't understand why clang-format is so reluctant to change > > anything, As such we don't have many people involved and getting anything > > done (even defects) is extremely hard. > > > > It looks like you met the criteria, and reviewers have been given ample > > opportunity to make an objection. the number of subscribers and like tokens > > would suggest this is wanted, > > > > Please also add a line the in the release notes to say what you are adding. > > In the absence of any other constructive input all we can do is follow the > > guidance on doing a review, for what its worth I notice in the rest of LLVM > > there seems to be a much larger amount of commits that go in even without a > > review, I'm not sure what makes this area so strict, so reluctant to change > > especailly when revisions do seem to be reviewed. > > > I don't have any stake here, but i just want to point out that no tool > (including clang-format) > will ever support all the things all the people out there will want it to > support. But every > new knob is not just a single knob, it needs to work well with all the other > existing knobs > (and all of the combination of knob params), and every new knob after that. > > It's a snowball effect. Things can (and likely will, unless there is at least > a *very* strict testing/quality policy > (which is > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options > about)) > get out of hand real quickly.. > > Just 2c. Correct we should always be add tests and show we don't break existing tests... We need to apply the "Beyonce Rule".. "if you liked it you should have put a test on it." We shouldn't just give up making improvements or fixing defects because something is hard or complex. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D33029/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D33029 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
