[PATCH] D56482: DO NOT SUBMIT. Draft for guidelines on using Phabricator.

[Eugene Zelenko via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.

In D56482#1351638 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56482#1351638>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:

>




> I think another point is that lot of review comments could potentially be caught by clang-tidy, there is sometimes lots of the review conversations  especially with new contributors, about "don't use anonymous namspaces but prefer static functions","clang-format the file", don't overly use auto", don't have "const value types" all stuff that is in the CodingStyle but is easily missed when making or updating a review.
> 
> It would be good if we had a mechanism to be able to validate a patch prior to commit, maybe using something like clang-tidy-diff.py in combination with something like the .rst linter to reduce the iterations on a revision, speed up development and reduce the burden  that seems present on a group of dedicated but possible select people.

Default Clan-tidy configuration is too permissive on my view. There are much more useful checks then enabled by default. But this should be subject for much wider discussion.

Other problem that there is only three checks for compliance with LLVM coding guidelines.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D56482/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56482