| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> What I'm trying to do is to allow maintainers to keep -Werror if |
| 4 |
> they really want to do this, understand what they are doing and |
| 5 |
> have enough manpower to support this. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Bug 665464 has just proven that this doesn't work. That bug would not |
| 8 |
have happened if the policy had been followed. Also its fix (removal of |
| 9 |
an unused variable) should have been applied only upstream. I don't see |
| 10 |
a good reason for adding downstream patches that will make no difference |
| 11 |
for the resulting binary. At least not when the upstream package is |
| 12 |
maintained, and the issue will likely go away with one of the next |
| 13 |
releases. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> As can be seen from aforementioned bugs right now developer and |
| 16 |
> upstream support this to their best and yet QA team tries to |
| 17 |
> enforce -Werror drop using the brute force and ignoring active best |
| 18 |
> effort support. This should not happen. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
See flameeyes's old blog post for the rationale why the current policy |
| 21 |
is in place: |
| 22 |
https://flameeyes.blog/2009/02/25/future-proof-your-code-dont-use-werror/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives