nickdesaulniers wrote: > Every PR we merge becomes precedent for the next contributor who reads recent > history to learn the house style. That is the harm I care about: it is cumulative, and it is much harder to reverse than to prevent.
Acknowledged. > but the base rate has changed. Acknowledged. > I don't have more time for this one. Can you please clear your Request for changes flag on this PR? I don't want to merge patches when there are outstanding requests for changes. > We noted that there was a prior RFC on the same topic but with a broader > focus and it had push back from @MaskRay, but he hadn't weighed in on the new > RFC. Ah, the prior RFC was https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-please-consider-enabling-fstack-clash-protection-probe-stack-by-default/90060. > FWIW, I agree that the PR summary doesn't really match our developer policy > on [commit > messages](https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#commit-messages). Ah, so we do document something about commit messages; it's perhaps worth restating this point in the [AI policy page](https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html). The one you linked to was the developer policy. Oh, looks like the AI policy was part of it, but moved out. https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-contributions Worth its own RFC, but if we had an AGENTS.md file in the tree, we could say "go read the AI tool policy doc and developer policy on commit messages." https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/209279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
