On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Manuel Klimek <kli...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM Aaron Ballman <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> aaron.ballman added a comment. >> >> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13368#260672, @klimek wrote: >> >> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13368#260669, @aaron.ballman wrote: >> > >> > > This wasn't a comment on the rule so much as a comment on the >> > > diagnostic not being very helpful.In this case, you're telling the user >> > > to >> > > not do something, but it is unclear how the user would structure their >> > > code >> > > to silence this diagnostic. Perhaps there is no way to word this to give >> > > the >> > > user a clue, but we should at least try. If I got this diagnostic as it >> > > is >> > > now, I would scratch my head and quickly decide to ignore it. >> > >> > >> > The cpp core guidelines are written in a way that they should be >> > referenceable by links - do we want to add links to the relevant portions >> > of >> > the core guidelines from the clang-tidy checks? >> >> >> I'd be hesitant to do that. It would add a lot of verbiage to diagnostics >> that are likely to be chatty, and if the links ever go dead mid-release >> cycle for us, we're stuck looking bad with no way to fix it. CERT's >> guidelines are also linkable in the same fashion (as would be hypothetical >> checks for MISRA, JSF, etc), and I would have the same hesitation for those >> as well due to the potential dead link issue. >> >> I think that having the links within the user-facing documentation is a >> must-have though (and something we've been pretty good about thus far) >> because those can be updated live from ToT. So perhaps a permanent short >> link to our own documentation might be useful (if a bit obtuse since our >> docs mostly just point to other docs elsewhere)? I'd still be a bit worried >> about expired short links or something, but maybe we already host a service >> for this sort of thing? > > > I'll postulate that a) github will not go away anytime soon and b) github > will have a hard time changing their link structure so linking into revision > N in branch M doesn't work any more. > Thus, I think if we link into the github release of the core guildelines, > we'll be fine.
Github's structure and stability isn't what I'm worried about. The C++ Core Guidelines internal structure is what I am worried about. They currently use anchors to navigate around CppCoreGuidelines.md, and those anchor names may or may not be stable. Even with the best of intentions on stability, links change. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
