[llvm] [CI] include utils in monolithic scripts (PR #158090)

[Aiden Grossman via llvm-commits]

boomanaiden154 wrote:

> You have no technical reason for blocking the change other than "I don't like it";

I don't have the relevant context to know if this patch makes sense because the only thing that depends on this functionality is not yet ready for review.

> The other PR is up and you simply air these concerns there instead of here because your concerns are about that one.

It's marked as a draft and you explicitly told another reviewer `Also, in general, I would appreciate it if you didn't review my PRs until they are marked Ready for review.`.

> I'm sorry is it somewhere in the charter/rules/guidelines that that's how we're doing PRs now? Typically, quite the opposite occurs - orthogonal changes are requested to be factored out and landed separately when they're independent.

Patches don't exist in isolation. There is context surrounding them. I think it is reasonable to request that the context is available and ready to be looked at before reviewing a change. Sure, "orthogonal" changes should be factored out when separable, but these changes still don't exist in a vacuum.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158090