Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-08-30 16:10:26) > > I'm 95% sure this shouldn't cause any problems given current DTs and > their history, but that's probably not enough. This might also impact > DTs that have not yet been upstreamed, but afaik the general stance is > to not care and actually serve as a fair hint/warning before new DTs > make it to the list. > > If there is a protocol in place to deprecate, warn, and eventually > remove this reliance on global clock names I'm more than happy to add > .name as a temporary fallback, even if likely unneeded. Otherwise we > might never get rid of it. I'm not aware of any protocol to deprecate, warn, and remove the fallback name. It's a fallback because it can't ever really be removed. Anyway, if you're not willing to add the .name then that's fine. We can deal with the problem easily by adding a .name in the future if someone complains that things aren't working. Sound like a plan? If so, it's probably good to add some sort of note in the commit text so that when the bisector lands on this patch they can realize that this intentionally broke them.
