ldionne added a comment. In D134604#3815634 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134604#3815634>, @mizvekov wrote:
> I was aware of those discussions, and I even made a workaround to avoid this > extra cost of running unrelated pipelines. > The patch on the very bottom of this stack (D134079 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134079>) disables all the other pipelines except > the bootstrapping one. Oh, awesome, I wasn't aware of that. Okay, this mitigates a lot of my concern then. The only remaining annoyance is the additional traffic on the libc++ review group, but that's manageable if it gets you the testing you need until we've improved the CI situation w/ Clang. > I have two other patches in the stack which I will need to keep running the > libcxx-ci as I update them: D131858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858> and > D127695 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127695>. These have had non-trivial libcxx > breakages, and I have even seen new problems introduced as you keep working > on the ranges implementation. Understood, in that case I think your usage of the CI is definitely justified. I mostly wanted to get the word out that this is not a pattern we want to encourage more generally, for the reasons explained, but I think it doesn't apply here. > Thanks by the way for the awesome work on the libcxx-CI, and I hope in the > near future these workarounds will not be needed anymore! Hey, thanks to you for wanting to ensure your patches don't break libc++ :-)! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134604/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134604 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
