Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ..the proposal is to utilize the existing eclass documentation markers
> ..the metadata stays current, and we can scale better to all eclasses

> if people don't properly document their eclasses, repoman might throw
> false positives (warnings, not errors) about unused eclasses

> will miss throwing errors when functions are used but the respective
> eclasses aren't inherited.

> however, i think that's a good hammer to throw at eclass maintainers to
> keep their documentation up-to-date and accurate.
> any other opinions/feedback?

I think it's an excellent idea to give this kind of QA early, to avoid 
issues like recent eutils inheritance changes in the future; it's not a 
hammer so much as a helpful reminder, that improves things for everyone. 

You could maybe tighten the false-negative side by scanning all functions 
defined in an eclass, and warning if they're undocumented.

Steve.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)