ichaer wrote: > So I'd prefer to see a patch doing that rather than just asserting that it is > the same.
@boomanaiden154, I'm willing to do that, but could we confirm with a clang-format maintainer first? In the course of that code review I referenced [I did introduce an error in the documentation through a valid change to the header files](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96804#discussion_r1707474893), and @mydeveloperday was able to catch it by looking at the file generated. The error I introduced would have been hard to catch through automation. I suppose the same could be said for all of the human-consumable artifacts, all the docs, but my impression is that this is a special case, user-facing documentation produced from comments in the source code. My instinct is to agree with you and not version-control artifacts, I just want to make sure that the folks who are dealing with that part of the codebase more frequently agree that change would be net positive. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111513 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
