aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43867#1021985, @alexfh wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43867#1021956, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > When we do this sort of move, do we want to keep the check under its old > > name for a deprecation period so that we are less likely to break automated > > scripts and whatnot? > > > I haven't done this for the previous ~15-20 moves. And I'm afraid this would > be a rather significant complication of the whole process which I'm not sure > how to automate. I hope, the release notes we provide should make the changes > transparent enough for everyone who cares. Or do you have any evidence of > these renames being actively harmful or at least significantly annoying? If it's not been done before and people aren't filing bug reports about it, I'm certainly fine with continuing the status quo. I don't have direct evidence, just indirect evidence of flags being removed/renamed causing automated scripts to fail. This LGTM, thank you! Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D43867 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
