| 1 |
On 13 August 2014 02:46, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2014-08-11, o godz. 20:48:20 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
>> > got a minor (but chatty) QA warning: |
| 5 |
>> > DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Why is this a QA warning in the first place? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Because it is a common mistake, and having the warning in-place should |
| 10 |
> help people avoid repeating it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is correct. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with '.'. I |
| 15 |
>> asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall that we |
| 16 |
>> have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual never |
| 17 |
>> mentions any such requirement. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I don't know if and where it is documented but that's what I was taught |
| 20 |
> when I started contributing to Gentoo, and it pretty much follows |
| 21 |
> the common sense. DESCRIPTION is supposed to be short and descriptive. |
| 22 |
> So you do an elliptical sentence (if I got the right translation), |
| 23 |
> and that doesn't end with a dot. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Again, this is what I was taught as well. It may have been an |
| 26 |
undocumented rule, but it has been around for as long as I can |
| 27 |
remember. It also makes linguistic sense, and as an English teacher it |
| 28 |
always irks me when I see this mistake. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> If you have any fair reason to not follow this, please speak of it. |
| 31 |
> Otherwise, this is pure bikeshed and waste of time. This thread already |
| 32 |
> took much more time than fixing your packages if repoman complained |
| 33 |
> about them. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Amen! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
>> If someone can point me to something I'm missing, let me know. |
| 38 |
>> Otherwise, I think the warning should be removed. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Even if there were no written-down policy, why would it be removed? |
| 41 |
> What is the benefit of removing the check that resulted in many fixes |
| 42 |
> already? Do you want to revert the removals afterwards? Or do you want |
| 43 |
> to introduce new packages which use '.' there? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I completely support this argument. The warning is correct and should |
| 46 |
remain in place. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Cheers, |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 52 |
Gentoo developer |
Archives