| 1 |
> On 21 Feb 2021, at 04:30, Tim Harder <radhermit@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Is there interest in enforcing some basic QA for the semi-formatted |
| 6 |
> comments in profiles/package.mask (and possibly other profiles file |
| 7 |
> types)? I have code implementing the basic functionality done for |
| 8 |
> pkgcheck, but wondered if the format should be standardized and |
| 9 |
> documented more than it may be already before support is merged. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I definitely have interest in this. Every so often, I find a class of mistakes |
| 13 |
like incorrectly-ordered masks, wrong email format, and so on, and fix |
| 14 |
them in the area I’m touching as it’s cheap to fix whatever file I’m on - |
| 15 |
not necessarily so to fix every single one in profiles/. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This also gives us scope to make requirements like e.g. a bug reference, |
| 18 |
clear date for removal if last-rites, and generally be a bit more verbose |
| 19 |
by making clear what the expectations are for message content. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(There is a clear benefit for last-rites having at least one bug — it gives |
| 22 |
users a chance to object or mention alternatives.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Anyway, not trying to bikeshed re last-rites process, I just mean there’s |
| 25 |
definitely a collection of uses here. Thanks for working on it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Note that this was brought up last month too by jstein, so there is definitely other |
| 28 |
interest: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/0600146362529770aa88225b29de46ae. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Also, I'm unsure it's been noticed but `pkgcheck scan --commits` now |
| 31 |
> verifies any profile changes done in git commits so this support would |
| 32 |
> automatically get run for package.mask changes (and other enabled files) |
| 33 |
> when using pkgcheck locally in that fashion. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Thanks, |
| 36 |
> Tim |
| 37 |
> |
Archives