From: | Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | [gentoo-portage-dev] RFC: [QA] notice with 'failed' seds [was PATCH: eapply drop -s option] | ||
Date: | Fri, 13 Dec 2019 22:12:32 | ||
Message-Id: | 52f183a6-e286-9e8a-96ec-69437f59baaa@veremit.xyz | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] eapply: Drop -s option for patch. by "Michał Górny" |
1 | On 13/12/19 20:36, Michał Górny wrote [excerpted]: |
2 | > |
3 | > Is this really an argument for or *against* it? Developers are entirely |
4 | > capable of keeping seds that do nothing for years, as well as patches |
5 | > that -- while apparently applying correctly -- are entirely meaningless. |
6 | <snip> |
7 | |
8 | I think there is some merit in some kind of feedback when sed's are doing |
9 | nothing, although how feasible it is to generate any useful feedback I |
10 | can't say. I wouldn't say it needs to explicitly fail or make lots of |
11 | noise, just an info message that could prompt some further investigation. |
File name | MIME type |
---|---|
signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: RFC: [QA] notice with 'failed' seds [was PATCH: eapply drop -s option] | Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |