| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:25:44PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just |
| 5 |
> > because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement. |
| 6 |
> > The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken |
| 7 |
> > and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If we are bothered enough by something to have repoman check it, we |
| 11 |
> can be bothered enough to add it to the devmanual. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I also think "that something" should be added to the devmanual before it |
| 14 |
is added to repoman so that developers aren't blind-sided by repoman |
| 15 |
warnings like this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I think we need to decide whether we care about periods at the ends of |
| 19 |
> DESCRIPTIONs. If we do, then it should be a warning and devs should |
| 20 |
> fix their ebuilds at the next convenient opportunity. If we don't, |
| 21 |
> then let's just drop the warning. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think some will have periods and some won't depending on how the |
| 24 |
description is written, so this warning is not one that should stay. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
Archives