From:  Andrew Halberstadt <ahalberstadt@mozilla.com>
Date:  13 Nov 2017 20:55:33 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.mozilla.org/mozilla.dev.planning
Subject:  

Re: Reorganizing Build Tools and Automation Components in Bugzilla

NNTP-Posting-Host:  63.245.214.181

Why don't we keep the component name as 'Lint' for now (so it's just moving
products). We can file a follow-up to figure out what to do (if anything)
with Core :: Rewriting and Analysis.

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:30 PM Steve Fink  wrote:

> On 11/12/17 1:14 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2017 00:41, Emma Humphries wrote:
>
> In bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406536 we've
> discussed a plan for reorganizing the Build Tools and Automation components
> in Bugzilla.
>
> [...]
>
> Source Code Analysis      <- Testing :: Lint
>
>    - For issues related to linting tools (e.g. flake8, eslint), static
>    analysis tools (e.g. clang-analyze), and code formatting tools (e.g.
>    clang-format). Feature requests for better ways to analyze or reformat
>    source code can also be filed here.
>
>
> We have been also using core::Rewriting and Analysis for this.
>
> What will happen to this?
>
> Yeah, this is a questionable one, because there's a range of things that
> could be described as static analysis and code formatting. It would seem
> kind of odd to have clang-format in the same component as the rooting
> hazard analysis, for example.
>
> You might be able to make a distinction between syntax and semantics?
> clang-format is syntax, clang-analyzer and the rooting analysis are
> semantics. Most linting is syntax. If you go this route, you could just
> drop static analysis from this list.
>
> But I don't know what things that would move around; perhaps a better
> distinction is between the implementations of the analyses vs their
> integration into the build system or continuous integration.
>
>
>