| 1 |
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:09:28 +0100 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson |
| 5 |
| > <ramereth@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
| > | QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use. |
| 7 |
| > |
| 8 |
| > Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check manually for many |
| 9 |
| > things. If we were to do the Sekrit Tool's IUSE check manually, for |
| 10 |
| > example, we'd still be in app-something, and would have missed many |
| 11 |
| > of the screwups. |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
| Then fix the tool. I find it somehow ironic that a member of the QA |
| 14 |
| team is trying to force a 'work-around' just to avoid fixing the |
| 15 |
| source of the problem. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
How? Writing a full bash parser is extremely difficult and would be a |
| 18 |
complete waste of time. It's far saner to assume sane syntax, and just |
| 19 |
bail out when crazy stuff is encountered. Sane syntax is not a work |
| 20 |
around -- it's a basic thing that should be expected from any source |
| 21 |
file that has to be worked on by more than one person, or even one |
| 22 |
person over a long period of time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Syntax is already, at least to a certain extent, mandated by policy. |
| 25 |
The question at hand is whether violations of this policy should be |
| 26 |
effectively ignored, or whether they should be treated as potentially |
| 27 |
severe simply because they mask other problems. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Wearer of the shiny hat) |
| 31 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 32 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives