[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D105888: [libcxx] [docs] Clarify what "supported" means in this context

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

ldionne requested changes to this revision.
ldionne added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/index.rst:121-124
+These are platform/architecture combinations that are continuously tested, that
+are formally supported. In practice, the library also is regularly used on
+other architectures and platforms, but as they're not continuously tested
+they're not listed as formally supported.
----------------
I interpret this as saying "We say that other platforms are not formally supported, but in reality, they are kind of supported".

That's exactly what I would like to steer away from, i.e. implicitly-supported-but-not-tested-platforms. I would rather keep the current "hard" stance taken by the documentation in the hopes that people will actually add CI for the configurations they care about, instead of de-incentivizing them by saying "oh but in practice other untested configurations are still supported".


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/index.rst:133
 for all the platforms and compilers that we claim to support. If a platform or compiler
 is not listed here, it is not officially supported. It may happen to work, but we don't
 make any guarantees. If you would like your compiler and/or platform to be listed here,
----------------
You could say something like:

> It may happen to work, and in practice the library is known to work on some platforms not listed here, but we don't make any guarantees. If you would like your compiler and/or platform to be formally supported and listed here, please work with [...]


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105888/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105888