| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/08/14 01:08 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> Ian Stakenvicius: |
| 6 |
>> So instead of, for instance, dropping the |
| 7 |
>> DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could instead be relegated |
| 8 |
>> to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It will still be broken, even if you hide it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Say it's fixed so it doesn't do false-positives anymore, etc. etc. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just |
| 16 |
because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement. |
| 17 |
The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken |
| 18 |
and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 22 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqSyYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAMZAD/QMy3mmz9yL9kKLfcrNlf737X |
| 25 |
9+iJjspqMrp/h8PV19oA/3fQExM/yGUBinM5CWFx6lvYz1pL2daeyxUgMRxtcxDB |
| 26 |
=ki6s |
| 27 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives