| 1 |
On 02/27/2014 09:08 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm putting the call out there for any agenda items for the next Council |
| 5 |
> meeting, which will be held on March 11, 2014 at 1900 UTC. This is |
| 6 |
> short notice but we got off track because of FOSDEM and we're going to |
| 7 |
> try to get back on track. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So far, the only item is final ratification of glep 63 [1]. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Apparently this one went under the radar, resending: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to > |
| 15 |
repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 16 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Here's one thing that's low priority and still controversial: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
(Since no one wants the QA team to actually *do* anything ... sigh) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Make all cosmetic repoman warnings fatal |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rationale: Either we care about things like whitespace and quoting, or |
| 26 |
we don't. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If we care then we shouldn't allow anyone to commit a bad ebuild |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If we don't care then repoman shouldn't annoy us with useless whining |
| 31 |
that doesn't matter anyway |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The affected repoman checks should be at least (but possibly not limited |
| 35 |
to): |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
* unused local useflag descriptions in metadata.xml |
| 38 |
* Whitespace, both at the beginning and the end of the line |
| 39 |
(this will need an improved repoman check to make sense |
| 40 |
as it currently has a few false positive matches) |
| 41 |
* variable quoting (may have false positives too) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Thanks, |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Patrick |
Archives