[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D92725: [libc++] [LWG2993] reference_wrapper<T> conversion from U&&

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

ldionne accepted this revision.
ldionne added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Hmm, yeah, it looks like D40259 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D40259> was never committed back in 2017. The work duplication is unfortunate, but let's move forward with this since this LGTM and CI is passing.



================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Cxx2aStatusIssuesStatus.csv:38
 "`2988 <https://wg21.link/LWG2988>`__","Clause 32 cleanup missed one typename","Albuquerque","",""
-"`2993 <https://wg21.link/LWG2993>`__","reference_wrapper<T> conversion from T&&","Albuquerque","",""
+"`2993 <https://wg21.link/LWG2993>`__","reference_wrapper<T> conversion from T&&","Albuquerque","|Complete|",""
 "`2998 <https://wg21.link/LWG2998>`__","Requirements on function objects passed to {``forward_``,}list-specific algorithms","Albuquerque","|Nothing To Do|",""
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > Mordante wrote:
> > > Can you add the version number in the last column?
> > > 
> > A priori I'm not sure what the convention is here.
> > 
> > - I've seen people adding "Clang 12.0" in some other files
> > - but //this// file uses just `""` consistently, e.g. on lines 43 and 44
> > - as a code-hygiene thing, clearly the best thing to do is have the person who cuts the 12.0 release update all the empty strings to "12.0" in one single commit (or to "12" if that's the convention, or to "2020.17" if we move to a different numbering scheme, etc.) — this avoids forcing individual contributors to guess at the next release number before it's announced
> > 
> > So I'll happily and quickly do whatever, but I'd like @ldionne to tell me.
> The column for the issues has been added last Friday. The papers had this column for a longer time (guess from day one) so I think we should use the same convention for the issues and papers:
> 
> "`2993 <https://wg21.link/LWG2993>`__","reference_wrapper<T> conversion from T&&","Albuquerque","|Complete|","12.0"
> 
> I agree the other empty columns aren't great and maybe we should all put a version number there.
I hadn't thought about that, but it seems like we could:
1. Fill all missing version numbers (in the worse case, if doing archeology is too hard/time consuming, just put "13.0" there).

2. Once we have all the versions, we can have a policy that when you implement something, you just mark it as `"Complete"`, and then the LLVM release is filled in when we cut a release. I agree with @Quuxplusone  that this would simplify the life for contributors and also remove the need for people to rebase just to change a version number when something is committed around a release branch (like right now, where I'm often requesting that people change versions from 12.0 to 13.0 since those patches won't make it into 12.0).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92725/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92725