Repository navigation
Tracking issue for RFC 2476, Clippy 1.0 #3343
Description
Activity
Looks like the lint levels were changed already, i vaguely recall this happening during the rfc.
Anyone want to add the version flag?
Should the repo itself be moved to the
rust-langorganization now to make it more official?- I certainly wouldn't mind, but rustfmt is still on the nursery and we've been pretty explicitly trailing behind rustfmt on such things. cc @nrc…On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 9:38 AM Mazdak Farrokhzad ***@***.***> wrote: Should the repo itself be moved to the rust-lang organization now to make it more official? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3343 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABivSJkfAPtLRL07HlQNYcq0YBkH6aPtks5un0YSgaJpZM4XyA6s> .
I'd be happy for the repo to move to rust-lang, but I don't see a great rush. I plan to move rustfmt at some point after the 1.0 release, probably as soon as I have time to do it.
during such a move we could also drop the
rust-prefix on the repo nameThe repo was moved to
rust-langbut therust-prefix was not dropped.
This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Clippy 1.0" (rust-lang/rfcs#2476).
Steps:
shadow_unrelatedshould be moved fromrestrictiontopedanticexplicit_iter_loopandexplicit_into_iter_loopbe moved fromstyletopedanticUnresolved questions:
None. The question of uplifts has been split out of this RFC into rust-lang/rust#53224
There isn't a "stabilization" step here per se, though we may consider moving the
clippy-previewrustup component toclippycc @nrc