On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Piotr Zegar <piotr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ClockMan abandoned this revision.
> ClockMan added a comment.
>
> As a 'corporation' in which I work has doubts that checks developed by my
> after work, but tested on copyright protected code should be released to
> public under my 'name'. I will drop "push request", until everything will
> clarify.
I look forward to seeing a new patch at some point. I agree with
Eugene that any future patch should be split out into distinct patches
that focus on just one check at a time.
> As for author name in module: For me is a: must-have, as I plan to extend
> these checks and develop more.
> As a author name in check name: I'm thinking about some "tags", so check
> could be registered under multiple names: clocky-object-copy-in-range-for and
> performance-object-copy-in-range-for.
I would be opposed to using an author name in anything that is
user-facing. We group the checkers either by functionality
("modernize-*" and "readability-*"), by organizational name
("google-*" and "llvm-*"), or by publication name ("cert-* and
"cppcoreguidelines-*"). We actively discourage use of author names
even in our code comments.
~Aaron
>
> Best regards,
> Clocky
>
>
> Repository:
> rL LLVM
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13444
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
