| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/08/14 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Perhaps we need to have a less-important repoman warning level |
| 7 |
> (something that can be quieted with a flag) for things like this? |
| 8 |
> In terms of DESCRIPTION consistency I don't see it being a bad |
| 9 |
> thing that we have the warning, but i also don't see a point in |
| 10 |
> changing the entire tree to get rid of 3000 bytes, esp. since the |
| 11 |
> ChangeLog entries added to the tree will add at least 30,000 bytes |
| 12 |
> :) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm wondering what everyone thinks of having a --nonag option to |
| 16 |
repoman and shoving some of the more trivial/style-related repoman |
| 17 |
'warnings' into a 'nag' level warning? IIRC at least one of the QA |
| 18 |
team members is so tired of the warnings that they want to make every |
| 19 |
single one of them errors; the --nonag option would allow those |
| 20 |
warnings to remain in repoman (ie to help guide new dev's or non-dev's |
| 21 |
using repoman on their local repos) but since they don't relate to |
| 22 |
actual technical breakage they can just be turned off during QA runs, etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thoughts? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqHwoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAVvgEAqNY3pl+QartxGxiTnEPuycl3 |
| 30 |
4za+QK26KuNUGO0RJewA/0EIV6z92TG3hr+eLDViIJxfdB0GVTl6JV6ha/EQUZcY |
| 31 |
=49jq |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives