On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Alexander Kornienko wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Aaron Ballman" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Piotr Zegar wrote:
>> > ClockMan abandoned this revision.
>> > ClockMan added a comment.
>> >
>> > As a 'corporation' in which I work has doubts that c
On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Aaron Ballman" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Piotr Zegar wrote:
> > ClockMan abandoned this revision.
> > ClockMan added a comment.
> >
> > As a 'corporation' in which I work has doubts that checks developed by
my after work, but tested on copyright protected co
Splinting a patch into separate check it's not a problem. I have organized
commits in that way.
About a 'author' in name, organization is also a author, so clocky is a
'one man organization' :D.
It's much more simple, I have no benefits in 'anonymous' contribution, in
that case I would rather go
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Piotr Zegar wrote:
> ClockMan abandoned this revision.
> ClockMan added a comment.
>
> As a 'corporation' in which I work has doubts that checks developed by my
> after work, but tested on copyright protected code should be released to
> public under my 'name'. I
ClockMan abandoned this revision.
ClockMan added a comment.
As a 'corporation' in which I work has doubts that checks developed by my after
work, but tested on copyright protected code should be released to public under
my 'name'. I will drop "push request", until everything will clarify.
As fo
Eugene.Zelenko added a subscriber: Eugene.Zelenko.
Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.
Will be good idea to review checks one by one.
Checks should be named after function, not after author. If existing categories
too wide, new one could be introduced, like performance
(clocky-inefficient-container
