sammccall added a comment. I understand where you're coming from. But I think agreeing to move the code was premature if it means either:
- following all the precedents in clang-tools-extra, or - taking on the political burden of getting these changed for all projects. Based on previous interactions, I think we differ on the relative value we place on consistency vs local quality vs burden on development, and our ability to make consensus-based changes on a timeline that feels acceptable. (This isn't a criticism, I admire your patience and dedication to consistency, I just don't share it). If consistency is to be the sine qua non, then I think we should probably leave the code where it is until someone's willing to do the work you described. clang/Tooling/Syntax is the most consistent location for the code, and the one proposed in the original RFC last year. > The status quo is that we try to be consistent unless there's a compelling > reason not to, so I disagree; the onus is on you as to why this is a special > snowflake that deserves to be inconsistent with everything else in the > project. If I understand, you're saying that LLVM in general, or clang-tools-extra in particular values consistency over quality. Is this a documented policy (where?), consensus (among who?), or historical practice (which would beg the question somewhat). This is a genuine question - I suspect that you're right, but it's hard to know how to challenge this if it's unclear where it comes from. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121233/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121233 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
