ilya-biryukov wrote: > Ok, I'm going to revert the change to help you out. But I'm going to re-land > it in a week or when you are ready, whichever comes first. > > There was no indication there is anything wrong with the change or if the > issue is wide-spread. And if a single company relies on an existing side > effect, there is no obligation for everyone else [to maintain such a side > effect](https://xkcd.com/1172/) forever. > > I'm willing to help figure out how to achieve the desired result in a > different way. But for that need to know what is the desired result.
I would like a second opinion on your proposed course of action from @llvm/clang-area-team. Please let me know if this is the right escalation path, if not, I am happy to find another one if this is wrong. It is concerning to me that we as a company are given **a week** to adjust to the change and there is no discussion either about alternative approaches or the scale of the changes needed to support this. We do rely on all kinds of weird behaviors and side effects in Clang, and are happy to adjust to make the best for the community. I am pretty sure we can find a way to make this work too, but not under undue pressure. I agree that maintaining anything for a single company is not something that the community must or should do, but we are also not asking for maintaining this behavior indefinitely. We ask to give us reasonable time to understand the problem and adjust and engage with us to help fix this. I also do not know how to react to the xkcd, it seems rather snarky and dismissive. I hope it was not intended that way, but I still wanted to call it out that it came over like this to me. With all that being said, thank you for reverting the commit, this really helps relieve some pressure from the discussion. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138227 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
