On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM Aaron Ballman <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Can't we link it to one specific version in time, and update the base revision when we did QA on the links? > > ~Aaron >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
