Tracking issue for RFC 2476, Clippy 1.0

[Manishearth]

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Clippy 1.0" (rust-lang/rfcs#2476).

Steps:

• shadow_unrelated should be moved from restriction to pedantic
• explicit_iter_loop and explicit_into_iter_loop be moved from style to pedantic
• Add a version flag to Clippy that says 1.0
• Update clippy_dummy published crate to 1.0

Unresolved 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-preview rustup component to clippy cc @nrc

[Manishearth]

Looks like the lint levels were changed already, i vaguely recall this happening during the rfc.

Anyone want to add the version flag?

[Centril]

Should the repo itself be moved to the rust-lang organization now to make it more official?

[Manishearth]

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> .

[nrc]

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.

[oli-obk]

during such a move we could also drop the rust- prefix on the repo name

[retep998]

The repo was moved to rust-lang but the rust- prefix was not dropped.