Clippy 1.0

[Manishearth]

So I'm thinking of doing a clippy 1.0 soon.

The idea will be to make a users.rlo post asking for feedback that needs to get in before 1.0, after which the semantics of existing lints will be somewhat frozen (can be changed, but needs more discussion). IMO warnings don't qualify as breaking changes anyway, so this isn't a rigid restriction.

However, what I'd like to get figured out before we land:

• Are there any bikesheds that need to be done? (https://github.com/Manishearth/rust-clippy/issues/533)
• Are there any major lints that we must have before 1.0?
• Are there any major bugs that we must fix?

The idea of 1.0 in my mind is that clippy is "ready". Folks have been using it for more than a year now, and this is something we probably should have done ages ago. This just marks it as something we're confident in telling others to use extensively.

This bug is mostly to track progress and to decide if there are any objections to going 1.0. The points listed above will be discussed when I make the internals posts, but can be discussed here if major.

Once we release 1.0 my plan is to try pushing for it to be included as a rustup component so that it can be used on stable.

Thoughts?

cc @llogiq @mcarton @oli-obk @birkenfeld

[mcarton]

I have been asked Sunday why/how the hell we got to 0.0.100 😄

Once we release 1.0 my plan is to try pushing for it to be included as a rustup component so that it can be used on stable.

So clippy 1.0.* would be for rustc 1.x, clippy 1.1.* for rustc 1.(x+1), etc.?

Are there any bikesheds that need to be done?

There probably is. I would like to merge/rename some lints before we get to stable. I looked at that once, but IIRC, the interface to rename lints is not available to us.

Are there any major lints that we must have before 1.0?

Don't think so.

Are there any major bugs that we must fix?

Most likely. I did want to rewrite loop lints at some points because they have quite a lot of FP, but I haven't had much time.

[Manishearth]

So clippy 1.0.* would be for rustc 1.x, clippy 1.1.* for rustc 1.(x+1), etc.?

Nah, the stuff shipped with rustc will have arbitrary versions (may not even correspond to clippy published versions due to temporary rustup fixes). I haven't yet settled on how that will work, and this involves discussion with the rustup/rustc folks too.

[oli-obk]

Regarding bikesheds, I say we move all controversial lints to allow by default (goodbye cyclomatic complexity my precious 😢) and the discuss them back into warn.

Also I think that we need #1295 and #1313 before 1.0, since those seem to be a major blocker for team wide usage.

Only cargo clippy is going into rustup, right? Or will the lints be autoloaded by the distributed rustc?

[mcarton]

I have already started working on #1295, I'll try to finish that soonish.

[Manishearth]

Only cargo clippy is going into rustup, right?

Oui.

I say we move all controversial lints to allow by default

Good idea. I'd prefer to just get them discussed first, and if there are any which haven't been discussed we move them to allow.

[Manishearth]

FWIW I've added a C-1.0-blocking label for things (like lint renames) that must happen before 1.0. It is not an exhaustive list right now. Feel free to apply liberally.

[LegNeato]

A bikeshed on Reddit suggested changing the name from clippy to lint.

Personally I superficially agree and also note that the clippy reference is not in the current zeitgeist and has never been experienced by devs of a certain age. The name and reference will only get less and less relevant as time goes on. Then again, clippy is a fun name for those who know, refers to computing lore/history, and I don't know how much work or fallout there would be changing 😃 .

Some projects using standard "lint" naming:

• Go: https://github.com/golang/lint
• Mozilla's mach: https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/tools/lint/usage.html
• Atom: https://atom.io/packages/linter
• VSCode: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/languages/javascript#_linters
• Phabricator: https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/arcanist_lint/
• Pylint: https://www.pylint.org/
• JSLint: https://www.jslint.com/

Some projects referring to "linting" but using different names:

• clang-tidy: http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/
• pyflakes: https://pypi.org/project/pyflakes/

[phansch]

I'm personally not opposed to renaming but one problem that comes to mind is: If we want to rename the command to cargo lint is that other Rust projects can also implement their own lints. There's also the lints in Rust itself.

I think calling Clippy by using cargo lint could be confusing in that regard as it's not clear anymore which lints of which project (clippy, rustc or something else) are executed.

[Manishearth]

Yeah, the point of Clippy is specifically to house the more annoying lints (of various levels of annoyingness). I've considered cargo lint in the past and it gets confusing.

I think it's fine if folks don't get the reference, it's still a nice, short, memorable tool name.