Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/08/14 12:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering what everyone thinks of having a --nonag option to
>> repoman and shoving some of the more trivial/style-related
>> repoman 'warnings' into a 'nag' level warning?  IIRC at least one
>> of the QA team members is so tired of the warnings that they want
>> to make every single one of them errors; the --nonag option would
>> allow those warnings to remain in repoman (ie to help guide new
>> dev's or non-dev's using repoman on their local repos) but since
>> they don't relate to actual technical breakage they can just be
>> turned off during QA runs, etc.
>>
>
> What, specifically, are we considering trivial?
>
> The whole point of repoman is to prevent devs from making
> mistakes. Being able to turn off warnings is counterproductive.
> Eliminating warnings that don't need to be warnings is of course
> fine.
>
> There is no value in having an escalating battle between warnings
> and options to suppress them.
>
> Rich
>

Well, there's warnings related to style, like
DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period, and then there's warnings relating to
technical or functional issues.  Of the second set, there are fatal
ones and then there are ones that aren't fatal but still important
(DEPENDENCY.badindev comes to mind).  I think the style or other
non-functional warnings (i can't actually think of any that aren't
style related, tbh) are great to have, and perhaps should even be
expanded if someone felt so inclined, but not at the expense of
additional noise all the time for groups like QA that are primarily
concerned about maintaining functionality.  So instead of, for
instance, dropping the DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could
instead be relegated to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag.

Essentially what it boils down to is that I don't see every non-fatal
warning as being equivalent in importance, and it might make sense to
push the ones that could be construed as recommendations rather than
warnings to a lighter level.

If there isn't any support for this idea, then of course let's skip it
and we can drop the check(s) instead if that's what's desired by the
community.  Then it's just a question of how far we might want to go
in terms of dropping checks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqR28ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCQfQEAgs9Zbpw9rkXjZpJUrM6s0/LZ
mGm1UeLe0iNN0zKn8JwBAJZ2NL1tEDA+8X15UHsT4mBTevK+I3cv9+l6R7j6AtGq
=ptmP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----