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.