amilendra wrote:

> This one looks fairly benign, and while I agree that it is good to upstream 
> things wherever possible, my slight objection rests mostly on two principles:
> 
>     * In general the community doesn't take behavior-changing patches purely 
> on the basis of eliminating merge conflicts for code that is out of tree. 
> Things that go upstream need to have a justification that is relevant to 
> upstream.
> 
>     * Changes that land need to come with tests that exercise them.
> 
> 
> FWIW, this particular change looks unlikely to be a source of merge 
> conflicts, as it adds only a single line to a table that is unlikely to be 
> touched very often. I think you'll be okay if this isn't upstream, but I 
> won't complain too loudly if you feel the need to land this anyway.

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, this seems simple enough that it won't be too 
hard to resolve even if a merge conflict appears. I'll abandon the change. 
Thanks for taking the time to review this.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98091
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to