royjacobson added a comment. In D130689#3709834 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689#3709834>, @thieta wrote:
> In D130689#3709742 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689#3709742>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> One thing I think would be a definite improvement is to have done an RFC on >> Discourse for these changes so that downstreams have a chance to weigh in on >> the impact. The patch was put up on Jul 28 and landed about a week later >> without any notification to the rest of the community who might not be >> watching cfe-commits -- that's a very fast turnaround and very little >> notification for such a significant change. > > Yeah this is on me. Honestly I didn't expect it to be that much of a problem > but rather the toolchain requirement we posted as part of it would be the big > hurdle where bot owners would have to upgrade to get the right versions. But > lesson learned and we should add some more delays in the policy here: > https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#id23 and cover the C++ standards > upgrade. Two points I want to add that I think would've been useful as well - 1. In addition to the toolchain soft errors, add a version check + #warning to some llvm header. This would be useful as it is more visible than the CMake warning and it could show up for cases where LLVM is used as a library+headers and not built from sources. 2. Delay actual usage of new language features until after the next release. Currently I see people pushing lots of cleanup commits that could hurt bug backports. It also has the benefit of making the transition more gradual. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
