[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D111458: [RFC][libc++] Use issue labels.

[Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Mordante added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Helpers/Styles.rst:48
+.. |ranges| replace:: :ranges:`ranges`
+.. |spaceship| replace:: :spaceship:`spaceship`
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > mumbleskates wrote:
> > > These replacements can and should hyperlink to the relevant papers page!
> > That could be done is some cases. Chrono is tricky since at the moment all chrono issues are chrono formatting issues. But in the future chono can have its own page; I think there's enough left of C++20 chrono to warrant its own page.
> > 
> > Do we want page links and if so should we make a separate group for `|format chrono|`?
> Maybe I don't understand the context here... I thought the whole point of adding these colored labels was so that we could //get rid of// the separate "pages." I assumed that the ultimate PR would include
> ```
> git rm libcxx/docs/Status/SpaceshipProjects.csv
> git rm libcxx/docs/Status/SpaceshipPapers.csv
> git rm libcxx/docs/Status/FormatPaper.csv
> git rm libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPaper.csv
> ```
> because now, if you want to see what's not-yet-done for a specific feature, you can just Ctrl+F for that feature's colored label on the main Cxx20 or Cxx2b page(s).
> 
> It would certainly be extra useful if the HTML page would let you "filter by tag," so that you could view just the [format] issues, or whatever. I don't mind if that CSS magic went into another PR, though.
> 
> OTOH, if the point of this PR is //not// to enable us to `git rm` those csv files listed above, then I don't understand what the point of this PR //is//.
The goal is to only remove the duplication of the LWG-issues on the project status pages. Not the duplication of the papers nor removing those pages entirely.
For example the formatting paper P0645 has taken me the better part of year to implement and some parts are still work-in-progress/not started. Without a status page it will be hard for others to keep track of the status. If somebody wants help with these projects, it's rather easy to see what the status is. That way we can avoid multiple people working on the same feature. 

The number of papers is quite small and they are often larger so may take multiple patches to implement them.
There's a huge number of LWG-issues and they are often small and easier the implement.
So that's the main motivation to handle these two differently.

I hope this clarifies the motivation for this patch better.

PS: I intend to remove the Format status page once `<format>` is implemented. Those who care about the details can find them in the git history.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111458/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111458