MyDeveloperDay added a comment. In D69764#2934378 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2934378>, @erichkeane wrote:
> I've just been watching this from the sideline, but the cases where this > breaks code are unacceptable for this tool, it is a complete direction change > for the tool, and making that direction change silently on a review of a 15 > month patch, where TWO code owners have said 'no' for that reason is absurd. > > I use this tool daily as a part of my 'upload' script, having it silently > bust code between when I validate it and when I upload it is terrible, and > makes the tool unusable for my purposes. If we change this direction without > a full RFC, my next step is going to be an RFC to remove clang-format from > the check-in requirements of the entire LLVM project. Can I just say, marking this review as requiring changes, I presume because you don't agree with it conceptually isn't very helpful to the consensus building process, unless you have an inline comment of something you think is wrong. What changes are you requesting? F18452578: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F18452578> I've tried to find compromises to mitigate peoples strong views, I know this is contentious, I've not tried to rush it in. I am a major contributor to clang-format, and I'd like to continue to move it forward.. as @klimek mentioned I'm one of the people really trying to help look after clang-format, I wouldn't do anything that I think damages it or its reputation, but I think there is value in this and other proposed changes. I know some people disagree but we also have to recognise that some agree too! A "no" is a "no for everyone", a "yes" is a "yes and no" based on the configuration, I know what I think is the fairer approach. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
