Reviewed 58 of 58 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB, @msbutler, @rickystewart, and @tbg)

pkg/ccl/changefeedccl/changefeed_stmt.go line 978 at r1 (raw file):

				// due to a transient, retryable error.
				err = jobs.MarkAsRetryJobError(err)
				lastRunStatusUpdate = b.setJobRunningStatus(ctx, lastRunStatusUpdate, "retryable flow error: %s", err)  //lint:ignore SA4006

This looks like an outright bug. I'd remove the lint ignore directive and ask @HonoreDB what's up with it.

pkg/cli/debug_merge_logs.go line 341 at r1 (raw file):

	}
	//lint:ignore SA4006
	to = to.Truncate(time.Second) // log files only have second resolution

The fact that to is not used any more is either a bug (the code below should use it), or a remnant from a previous version.
In any case, a linter ignore here is not desirable.
@abarganier what should we do here?

pkg/kv/kvserver/deprecated_store_rebalancer.go line 124 at r1 (raw file):

			}

			filteredStoreList := storeList.ExcludeInvalid(conf.Constraints)

wowzer. This also looks like a bug. The removal you just made doesn't look like the right fix? I think we need to combine them somehow.
Even though the file name says "deprecated" I believe this code is still in use.

@aayushshah15 what do you think?

pkg/kv/kvserver/store_rebalancer.go line 461 at r1 (raw file):

		}

		filteredStoreList := allStoresList.ExcludeInvalid(conf.Constraints)

ditto

pkg/sql/colexec/columnarizer.go line 218 at r1 (raw file):

		newRows := make(rowenc.EncDatumRows, c.batch.Capacity())
		_ = newRows[len(oldRows)]
		//lint:ignore S1001

Maybe add a comment to explain we're avoiding copy because we need gcassert below.

( @yuzefovich could we use copy here? That's what the compiler is trying to tell us. )

pkg/sql/opt/cat/zone.go line 308 at r1 (raw file):

	voterChild := zoneChild
	if zone.VoterConstraintsCount() > 1 {
		voterChild = voterChild.Childf("voter replica constraints")  //lint:ignore SA4006

This also looks suspicious. I don't think we should ignore this linter warning.
@mgartner @rytaft do you want to have a look?

pkg/sql/opt/memo/statistics_builder.go line 4122 at r1 (raw file):

	for f := 0; f < len(h.filters); f++ {
		conjunctSelectivity = props.OneSelectivity

Here i'm also not what's up - why are we not looking at the conjunct selectivity any more?

cc @rytaft @mgartner

pkg/sql/opt/xform/scan_funcs.go line 320 at r1 (raw file):

	// let's not hide the problem by still generating a locality-optimized search
	// that doesn't fully cover local spans.
	//lint:ignore S1009

It's possible we do care about the difference between a nil slice reference and a zero-sized non-nil slice here, but I'm not sure.
Perhaps the code can indeed be simplified. If we keep it, we need an explanatory comment to motivate the linter ignore.

@mgartner can you provide guidance?

Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB, @msbutler, @rickystewart, and @tbg)

pkg/ccl/changefeedccl/changefeed_stmt.go line 978 at r1 (raw file):

I don't know;... it's True that we return below; but normally lastRunStatusUpdate is used, and is updated in a loop;
I suppose we could say "_ = b.setJobRunningStatus"... But is it that much better? It's definitely not a bug.

Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB, @msbutler, @rickystewart, and @tbg)

pkg/ccl/changefeedccl/changefeed_stmt.go line 978 at r1 (raw file):

Also, ignoring return values.. perhaps it's a thing, but I personally really don't like it.

Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB, @knz, @msbutler, @rickystewart, and @tbg)

pkg/sql/colexec/columnarizer.go line 218 at r1 (raw file):

We can replace the first for loop with the copy (it'd be nicer to put that copy before _ = newRows[len(oldRows)] line).

nice 💯 🔥

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, 2 of 3 files at r4, 2 of 4 files at r5, 1 of 1 files at r6, 1 of 3 files at r7, 12 of 14 files at r9, 13 of 13 files at r10, 3 of 3 files at r11, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @HonoreDB, @knz, @msbutler, @rickystewart, and @tbg)