@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #81757 has been requested for prioritization.
Should we ping the LLVM group here?
I don't think this is easily actionable, I think we should only ping when there's something actionable
The action would be "investigate the issue" ;)
@Camelid meanwhile Nikita Popov commented on the issue so I think now the LLVM group has this under their radar. I'd leave them a bit more time and see how this should be prioritized (unclear to me for now).
I will remove the
I-prioritize here because I'm not sure yet if there's an actionable. I /think/ it's not high/critical because it can be avoided by moving things in the code.
Nothing blocking prioritizing it again as the situation gets clearer
Issue #81757's prioritization request has been removed.