Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Initial fetch() refactoring

[Alec Warner]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Alexander Berntsen <alexander@××××××.net>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 19/01/14 23:54, Alec Warner wrote:
> > I'm very against add a bunch of extra rules that have to be
> > enforced by hand. I want to make it easy to contribute, not more
> > difficult. If bob can run a tool that tells him all the things
> > that are wrong with his patch, that avoids us having like 1/3rd of
> > the conversations on list ;)
> Feel free to write a tool for this, or to contribute to any of the
> numerous linters and/or editor plug-ins. It would be much appreciated.
>
>
I already prefer pylint, and I think it does cover most of what I want. I
am working a pylintrc patch.


> As for the difficulty of PEP 257... I have higher hopes for Portage
> contributors than getting stuck at that. If I write a patch that makes
> most of the docstrings follow it, then they can infer 99% of the
> "extra rules" by just looking at the other functions and methods. If
> they fail to comply, we can just mention it. If the docstring
> formatting is the biggest issue with their patch, I doubt they'll have
> a hard time fixing it.
>

I'm not saying its hard, I'm saying it is a giant waste of time for the
list to tell people 'hey your docstrings are wrong' when they can just run
a tool to do it ;)

-A




> - --
> Alexander
> alexander@××××××.net
> http://plaimi.net/~alexander
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlLcZPQACgkQRtClrXBQc7XizAD/Y/Gxc7N6VkgNFWRgP5lmQ84r
> UwSne2xaqJYphY9x1TcBAIRpjBHB580edLz/8zpT14lqhW3oOmeMz0pNMB8ssW5d
> =+zp5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>