Eugene.Zelenko added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:237
 
+- Fixed an issue in :doc:`google-avoid-underscore-in-googletest-name
+  <clang-tidy/checks/google/avoid-underscore-in-googletest-name>` when using
----------------
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > > PiotrZSL wrote:
> > > > > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > > > > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > > > > Please keep alphabetical order (by check name) in this section.
> > > > > > I was planning to do that but noticed that the alphabetical order 
> > > > > > is already broken. It seems to be a source of friction and there's 
> > > > > > no official documentation that states it should be done like that, 
> > > > > > so I can understand if it gets broken often. Do you know if this is 
> > > > > > documented somewhere? If not, do we see value in keeping this 
> > > > > > convention? I suppose now we would need an NFC patch to fix the 
> > > > > > order again, causing churn.
> > > > > I run into same issue also. I would say, let leave it as it is, and 
> > > > > fix it with one commit at the end of release.
> > > > Good idea, let's do that!
> > > Often it's also broken after rebases which may be automatic.
> > Anyway, some kind of order is much better than disorder.
> Definitely. Could we stick to some simple convention? For example always 
> append or prepend to the list of modifications to checks. Then before release 
> we put up a patch for reordering.
I think it will be harder to reader. Sorting by check name is much better in 
this respect. And this was used in many releases.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146655/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146655

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to