On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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-*"),
Both "google" and "llvm" are not about organizations, but about specific
styles, well thought out, documented, and verified for consistency by a
significant amount of code using these styles. These module names are in no
way meant to give credits to the organizations of their authors.
> 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
