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 firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits