Why would have RuboCop installed and not what to use it?

I think the check is perfectly fine in its current state, especially given
the fact that you can simply disable RuboCop with the defcustom mentioned.

> Since most if not all of the warnings that
>> Rubocop generates are not raised by Ruby I consider them not adopted by
>> the Ruby community by default.

You know this thing is configurable, right? ;-) The vast majority of checks
are actually pretty much community standard - Ruby produces only a minimal
amount of lint warnings, RuboCop has extended linting but also a lot of
code style checking functionality.

I don't really want us to check for RuboCop config files (those are
hierarchical and won't necessarily be in the root of your current project
anyways) - I think the current check + config is sufficient.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 17:16, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

> On 6/8/18 9:42 PM, João Távora wrote:
> > Petko Bordjukov <bordjukov@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Emacs 26.1 enables flymake-rubocop by default if the rubocop executable
> >> is present in the system. Since most if not all of the warnings that
> >> Rubocop generates are not raised by Ruby I consider them not adopted by
> >> the Ruby community by default. Based on that, I propose that either
> >> using Rubocop by default is turned off, or at least a more inteligent
> >> per-project Rubocop detection scheme is implemented.
> >>
> > Paging Dmitry :-)
>
> So... First of all, there is the variable
> ruby-flymake-use-rubocop-if-available, to satisfy the individual
> preference to turn Rubocop off.
>
> Second, what kind of per-project detection scheme? I suppose we can
> abort if no ruby-rubocop-config file is found. That would certainly work
> for me, but would maybe conflict with the general usage of Rubocop out
> there (but probably not).
>
> Maybe Bozhidar has something to say on this?
>