On Oct 24, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > wrote: > It looks like the failure was in clang-tools-extra > (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangTools.html). > IMHO, since this is not in the clang repository, it is unreasonable to have > the phase1 bots tied to that and expect everyone to build and update it after > making changes. > > Michael, what do you think ? I think we should have a bot building > clang-tools-extra, but I don't think it belongs in phase 1. > > I don't care very much whether its in phase 1, but I think it is really, > really important that developers making an API change are expected to update > code in that tree. > > When changing an LLVM API, we routinely ask people to update Clang, > DragonEgg, etc. This shouldn't be any different. Asking people to update clang-tools-extra is fine, that's why I believe there should be a buildbot building it, but phase 1 is the highest priority, any breaking window should be at a minimum; phase 1 should build the code that everyone committing changes is building, not include repositories that are out of the core repositories.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
