> Yes, I absolutely agree with the both of you here. The only points I wanted > to make clearly were… > > (1) We don't care about clang.llvm.org/analyzer > > (2) We care very much about clang-analyzer.llvm.org.
Ah, ok I won't mess with that then. Thanks for making it clear. -- Sean Silva On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 18, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 18, 2012, at 11:29 , Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > > But it has its own website, clang-analyzer.llvm.org. > > > I'm curious about this. Why is it not sufficient to simply be > clang.llvm.org/analyzer (which works)? > > > For reference, the fact that this URL works is a curiosity, not something > users know about. We don't direct users to that URL. I did not come up > with this setup. Apparently it was easier to setup the website this way at > the time. If it makes sense to move the analyzer website to a different > repository, I am completely in favor of doing so. > > > ...although I agree with Sean that docs/analyzer/ should stay in the same > repo as the analyzer source (even if it moves elsewhere in the Clang repo). > > > Yes, I absolutely agree with the both of you here. The only points I wanted > to make clearly were… > > (1) We don't care about clang.llvm.org/analyzer > > (2) We care very much about clang-analyzer.llvm.org. > > I very much appreciate all the work that Sean is doing here. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
