Skip to content

Conversation

boomanaiden154
Copy link
Contributor

This patch bumps the clang-format version in the pr-code-format action to the latest release version, in line with how we have handled this before.

This patch bumps the clang-format version in the pr-code-format action
to the latest release version, in line with how we have handled this
before.
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Aug 27, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-github-workflow

Author: Aiden Grossman (boomanaiden154)

Changes

This patch bumps the clang-format version in the pr-code-format action to the latest release version, in line with how we have handled this before.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/155660.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) .github/workflows/pr-code-format.yml (+1-1)
diff --git a/.github/workflows/pr-code-format.yml b/.github/workflows/pr-code-format.yml
index 5540555ae05ed..3089debbdbc2f 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/pr-code-format.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/pr-code-format.yml
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ jobs:
       - name: Install clang-format
         uses: aminya/setup-cpp@17c11551771948abc5752bbf3183482567c7caf0 # v1.1.1
         with:
-          clangformat: 20.1.8
+          clangformat: 21.1.0
 
       - name: Setup Python env
         uses: actions/setup-python@42375524e23c412d93fb67b49958b491fce71c38 # v5.4.0

@owenca
Copy link
Contributor

owenca commented Aug 28, 2025

Should we wait until #155466 is merged?

@boomanaiden154
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should we wait until #155466 is merged?

That's only needed for the reproduction instructions. We're not actually using it in the CI. The way the git history gets setup in the CI is quite a bit different than it typically is locally due to how Github handles things.

@owenca
Copy link
Contributor

owenca commented Aug 28, 2025

So are we updating the clang-format version twice for each release cycle? See #141819 (comment).

@boomanaiden154
Copy link
Contributor Author

So are we updating the clang-format version twice for each release cycle? See #141819 (comment).

Sounds reasonable enough to me. In the comment I also mentioned we should upgrade if there are relevant clang-format backports because I think that is something we would probably want.

@boomanaiden154 boomanaiden154 merged commit b7d2bd6 into llvm:main Aug 28, 2025
9 checks passed
@boomanaiden154 boomanaiden154 deleted the clang-format-action-21-1-0 branch August 28, 2025 14:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants