NoQ added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1088050, @alexfh wrote:
> As folks noted here, some users prefer to use clang-tidy as a frontend for > the static analyzer. If this helps them test experimental CSA features and > CSA maintainers are willing to accept bug reports and potentially patches > from this category of users, I don't want to create obstacles, as long as all > experimental features need to be explicitly enabled. +my imho thing: i totally don't mind that category of users :) But just one thing - as of the current (for the last few years) balance between 1.5 – 2 maintainers being blessed with really impressing amount of contributors, we really really prefer maintainance help (eg. someone who would be able to take responsibility of making sure a certain check is complete and moved out of alpha - test it thoroughly, address known issues, keep maintaining it after it is declared stable) versus random improvements and experiments on which time is being spent without any visible movement towards making the check actually available to the users in the nearest future. In this sense bug reports against abandoned alpha checkers (which are, unfortunately, the majority) aren't very useful. In most cases it's just too easy to see how broken they are. But if you are interested in a particular checker and want to work on it to make sure it's stable, we'd be glad to help, so please contact us on the mailing list. That's kinda where we are these days. https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
