Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:11:28
Message-Id: 53EA66D1.7070307@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings ) by "Michał Górny"
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 12/08/14 03:01 PM, Micha³ Górny wrote:
5 > Dnia 2014-08-12, o godz. 10:04:58 Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
6 > napisa³(a):
7 >> On 12/08/14 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
8 >>>
9 >>> Perhaps we need to have a less-important repoman warning level
10 >>> (something that can be quieted with a flag) for things like
11 >>> this? In terms of DESCRIPTION consistency I don't see it being
12 >>> a bad thing that we have the warning, but i also don't see a
13 >>> point in changing the entire tree to get rid of 3000 bytes,
14 >>> esp. since the ChangeLog entries added to the tree will add at
15 >>> least 30,000 bytes :)
16 >>>
17 >>
18 >> I'm wondering what everyone thinks of having a --nonag option to
19 >> repoman and shoving some of the more trivial/style-related
20 >> repoman 'warnings' into a 'nag' level warning? IIRC at least one
21 >> of the QA team members is so tired of the warnings that they want
22 >> to make every single one of them errors; the --nonag option would
23 >> allow those warnings to remain in repoman (ie to help guide new
24 >> dev's or non-dev's using repoman on their local repos) but since
25 >> they don't relate to actual technical breakage they can just be
26 >> turned off during QA runs, etc.
27 >
28 > Just don't. I think you missed the point hard and I don't want to
29 > know where the ricochet ended.
30
31 The ricochet more or less ended with the notion that repoman shouldn't
32 be a random style guide, or rather, development time is better spent
33 elsewhere rather than making it into one -- and so there's no use case
34 for "nag" level messages and a flag that would disable them.
35
36
37 > Thirdly, I'm pretty sure I had a third argument but I forgot what
38 > it was. But it was totally convincing, I'm sure of it.
39
40 Yep, that one was definitely the clincher. you've convinced me! :)
41
42 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
43 Version: GnuPG v2
44
45 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqZtEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCDBAD/WJQ8JBPnYD5XuqTMqHygYd5L
46 K24oZzyhAsR1vkSahhgBAIW+hia5MXJd4T4AD8u9hi4xzdxGg/2xpwlYMs0u9VQ8
47 =vQMn
48 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----