carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D112720#3094163 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112720#3094163>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> As long as this blankedly breaks/regresses existing configs it's a > non-starter i think. I see, thanks for the input! I'm curious if there are any deprecation mechanisms for clang-tidy? Or can it only be updated in a backwards-compatible way? As seen in the other referenced patch, the backwards-compatible solution is to add yet another configurable parameter - `ExcludedHeaderFilterRegex`, which only contributes to more user confusion. Or keep calling the parameter `HeaderFilterRegex` and switch the implementation to something that is not a regex - even more confusion to the users. Personally I think it would be good to have such mechanisms to be able to improve on existing design (not just add more functionality). It's impossible to predict the future so decisions that made total sense in the past might need to be revised later to adapt to user needs. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112720/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112720 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
