[clang] [libcxx] [SemaCXX] Implement CWG2137 (list-initialization from objects of the same type) (PR #77768)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

erichkeane wrote:

> However, a revert shouldn't be perceived as an impolite or unfriendly action. All contributions are welcome and appreciated. Reverting a commit is merely a way to deal with problems one at a time without blocking others or racing against the clock.

Unfortunately this isn't the way it is perceived.  No matter how much we say that, it causes folks to get discouraged/scares them away.  I've witnessed a significant number of 'new' contributors do great for 3-4 patches, then have their 'last' patch get reverted, and that person disappears from the project.  I know when _I_ first got reverted (a long time ago now!) I nearly quit the project entirely, and I had many coworkers tell me they no longer wanted to contribute to clang after getting reverted.

While I realize this is the 'policy', I'm asking for compassion, particularly with new developers who are engaging.

>For example, I got a quick response here, but now, two days later the fix hasn't been even sent for review (and this is totally fine, since the problematic commit is reverted, and the author can work in their pace and with their own priorities).

I find myself wondering if/afraid that the 'revert' is why we haven't seen them come back, and not because they now have 'more time'.

While I am sympathetic to the goals of keeping ToT green, I just asked that you be equally sympathetic to the person you're reverting.


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768