[llvm-dev] RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase & git-blame

[Michael Kruse via llvm-dev]

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 12:59 Uhr schrieb JF Bastien via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> I think there’s lack of proper communication for this effort. The RFC is all about variable naming, with 100+ responses. Sounds like a bikeshed I’ve happily ignored, and I know many others have. Even if you don’t think I’m right, I’d appreciate a separate RFC with details of what’s actually being proposed. Off the top of my head I’d expect at least these questions answered:
>
> What’s the final naming convention?
> Will we have tools to auto-flag code that doesn’t follow it, and can auto-fix it?
> Will we clang-format everything while we’re at it?
> Will we run clang modernizer to move code to C++11 / C++14 idioms while we’re doing all this?
> What’s the timeline for this change?
> Is it just a single huge commit?
> After the monorepo and GitHub move?
> Is there a dev meeting roundtable scheduled?
> What tooling exists to ease transition?
> Out-of-tree LLVM backends are a normal thing. They use internal LLVM APIs that should all be auto-updatable, has this been tried?
> Some folks have significant non-upstream code. Have they signed up to remedy that situation before the deadline (either by upstreaming or trying out auto-update scripts)?

* Do we also change the remaining method names starting with and
uppercase letter (Such as IRBuilder::*)?

Michael