| 1 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'd argue against this one. See, it's possible to deliberately |
| 4 |
> > circumvent some of repoman's checks by doing weird whitespace and syntax |
| 5 |
> > trickery. There's also no way to fix repoman short of writing a fully |
| 6 |
> > functional bash parsing tool -- which is complicated enough that even |
| 7 |
> > bash doesn't have one that works in some releases... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use. The final say should |
| 10 |
> be the human interaction. If doing weird white spaces breaks the tool, |
| 11 |
> but really isn't a QA issue outside of neatness, it shouldn't be waving |
| 12 |
> red flags. Yes, its probably something that should be fixed, but it |
| 13 |
> shouldn't be a critical one just because the tool is broken and can't |
| 14 |
> handle the weirdness. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I agree. Coding standards, while they may qualify as violations, are |
| 17 |
not as severe, but are definitely things we would like to see fixed. |
| 18 |
They are there to make readability across ebuilds easier since |
| 19 |
everything will be formatted the same way for a developer to see. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) |
| 23 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 24 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 25 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 26 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives