package-comments flags main as of 1.2.2

[twmb]

This might not be a bug, but I'd like to clarify if this is intentional. It's not common to document main packages, I personally plan to disable the rule if it continues to lint documenting main.

[chavacava]

Hi @twmb, thanks for filling the issue.

Well, even if documenting main packages might be not so common, the official guideline for documenting GO code says they should be documented:

Every package should have a package comment introducing the package.

and it also provides an example for a main package:

/*
Gofmt formats Go programs.
It uses tabs for indentation and blanks for alignment.
Alignment assumes that an editor is using a fixed-width font.
[...]
When gofmt reads from standard input, [...]
formatted by piping them through gofmt.
*/
package main

As a reference, standard GO tools have documented main packages.

Must revive lint main package documentation? I think it must but I'm open to discuss about.

[hawkingrei]

We have meet this problem, too. but we are not main package.

https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/pull/37413

https://ci.pingcap.net/blue/organizations/jenkins/tidb_ghpr_build/detail/tidb_ghpr_build/78196/pipeline

util/texttree/texttree.go:15:1: package-comments: should have a package comment (revive)

https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/blob/a80078538d366d55acfc34dd772b1977a720a9bc/util/texttree/texttree.go#L14-L16

[twmb]

Must revive lint main package documentation?

I'm open to it, but I think it's worth a quick survey of the packages that already use revive to see if they currently document main. I never have -- I document my main packages elsewhere. As well, main packages do not follow the common Package main ..., as seen in the linked post above.

[chavacava]

We have meet this problem, too. but we are not main package.

util/texttree/texttree.go:15:1: package-comments: should have a package comment (revive)

https://github.com/pingcap/tidb/blob/a80078538d366d55acfc34dd772b1977a720a9bc/util/texttree/texttree.go#L14-L16

Hi @hawkingrei , I've checked the code you point in your comment and I've seen there is no documentation for the texttree package. Thus revive pointing that lack of documentation seems OK to me. Do you agree or I'm missing something?

[chavacava]

As well, main packages do not follow the common Package main ..., as seen in the linked post above.

Yes, revive takes that into account