[PATCH] D52984: [analyzer] Checker reviewer's checklist

[Gábor Horváth via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

xazax.hun added inline comments.


================
Comment at: www/analyzer/checker_dev_manual.html:719
+<ul>
+<li>User facing documentation is important for adoption! Make sure the check list updated
+    at the homepage of the analyzer. Also ensure that the description is good quality in
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > Make sure the **checker** list **is** updated
> > I think at some point we should decide if we prefer the term check or checker to refer to these things :)  Clang Tidy clearly prefers check.
> That is the distinction I'm aware of too: checkers in the Static Analyzer, checks in clang-tidy.
My understanding is the following: we want users to use the term `check`, since that is more widespread and used by other (non-clang) tools as well. The term `checker` is something like a historical artifact in the developer community of the static analyzer. But if this is not the case, I am happy to change the terminology. But I do want to have some input from rest of the community too :)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D52984