1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> ..the proposal is to utilize the existing eclass documentation markers |
3 |
> ..the metadata stays current, and we can scale better to all eclasses |
4 |
|
5 |
> if people don't properly document their eclasses, repoman might throw |
6 |
> false positives (warnings, not errors) about unused eclasses |
7 |
|
8 |
> will miss throwing errors when functions are used but the respective |
9 |
> eclasses aren't inherited. |
10 |
|
11 |
> however, i think that's a good hammer to throw at eclass maintainers to |
12 |
> keep their documentation up-to-date and accurate. |
13 |
> any other opinions/feedback? |
14 |
|
15 |
I think it's an excellent idea to give this kind of QA early, to avoid |
16 |
issues like recent eutils inheritance changes in the future; it's not a |
17 |
hammer so much as a helpful reminder, that improves things for everyone. |
18 |
|
19 |
You could maybe tighten the false-negative side by scanning all functions |
20 |
defined in an eclass, and warning if they're undocumented. |
21 |
|
22 |
Steve. |
23 |
-- |
24 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |