Théo FIDRY

Rebased & reverted the namespace changes: so it requires another PR to fix some naming inconsistencies but that also lighten (a bit) the amount of stuff to review and opens...

ping @infection/core

>Are you saying that Mutant (ruby lib) is the source of truth for us? I doubt. If there is something is (not) implemented, I have no idea why we need...

>I have a feeling that 2 things are mixed up here which really confuse me: @maks-rafalko I totally get that feeling :) It's unfortunately a case where I feel both...

### Pitest Mutant.java ```java /** * A fully generated mutant */ public final class Mutant { private final MutationDetails details; private final byte[] bytes; public Mutant(final MutationDetails details, final byte[]...

Reporting on the poll: so far the following projects agree on that piece of the nomenclature: - mull - mutant - mutmut

@maks-rafalko since not once seem very keen to jump on with #1064, @sanmai proposed to show that "MSI relative to code coverage" first to gauge if it's good enough or...

>Can someone explain me why using a PHAR through composer is better than just using prefixed standalone PHAR or using Phive. Personally: I find annoying to have to use yet...

>E.g. on a random project I have Infection takes 29 seconds to run with this option, and 39 seconds without it. So a 14% improvement, which is far from being...

IMO that's not an issue, it's always been pretty clear for mutation testing in general: - Line code coverage highlights code that is definitely _not_ tested - Mutation score highlights...