@WG-prioritization issue #71504 has been requested for prioritization.
Seems scary... Should we ping the LLVM ICE-breaker group, even if this isn’t an ICE?
I don't mind pinging both groups
pinging both groups is fine
Should we wait to hear back from the ICE-breaker groups before prioritizing?
Seems at least
P-high if not
P-critical at this time.
Oh we got some more information from
I think we can still ping both groups and tag
P-critical for the first investigation?
Does that seem good @Wesley Wiser?
Seems great to me :)
does it beg a P-critical? i'm more inclined towards P-high
I think we all agree on pinging both groups, so I'll do that first
i was about to do it an hour back and then forgot the command :D
should probably set it as an github auto-reply
There are aliases now
@rustbot ping <llvm/cleanup>
I was thinking also about
we can always tag and fix later
but according to the current state of things I'd say
this is windows and thin-lto only right?
still I think it's critical :)
and it's also happening in real code
we didn't tag this one yet
We didn't get any information from the ICE-breakers
I think it deserves a spotlight
We currently have no
P-critical issues open
So I believe we can make this a
And review that priority later once we have an MCVE etc...
yeh i don't think we need to wait for the breakers
P-critical for now then
Issue #71504's prioritization request has been removed.
seeing the latests comments this is not
P-critical anymore :slight_smile:
and also it may be just closed as @Jonas Schievink mentioned
I think we should unprioritize it and wait for Gankra to choose to close or not to
let's leave as is for now and wait, to avoid too much back and forth, but let's also remember to not leave this as
P-critical for next meeting
given that we review this things, it won't anyway but just saying :)
Has been added to metabug #71520