erichkeane added a comment. In D139986#4040185 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139986#4040185>, @ldionne wrote:
> @dblaikie > > We added the libc++ tests to the Clang pre-commit CI after discussing with > @erichkeane since he told me breaking libc++ was a recurring pain point, and > having a way to detect that would be greatly appreciated by the Clang folks. > The goal was really only to help Clang developers catch more issues earlier. > I believe this confusion is only the result of miscommunication within the > Clang community -- it seems that not all Clang developers know equally well > what tools are available to them and what each bit of infrastructure should > be used for. @erichkeane @aaron.ballman Would it make sense for you folks to > post something on Discourse to explain what the expectations are w.r.t. Clang > pre-commit CI? That is DEFINITELY true, the Clang pre-commit CI is historically really unreliable, so seeing a failed CI is something that even the most experienced of us are ignoring quite a bit thanks to its unreliability. An announcement of some sort that we CAN trust the libc++ one is perhaps a good idea. Perhaps I'll work with Aaron to come up with a message. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139986/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139986 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
