| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:43 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> What do you think? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'm not sure this will be the best way to improve the quality. In my view |
| 7 |
(although it's a long time ago I did the eclasses) doing ebuilds and |
| 8 |
eclasses right is a pretty deep *and* pretty wide subject, such that it |
| 9 |
seems likely that even with regular requizzing and quizz updates, there |
| 10 |
would still be a lot of material that is not adequately covered by the |
| 11 |
ebuild quizzes. Given the largish burden on developers, couldn't they more |
| 12 |
productively spend their limited time on actual ebuild improvements? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
As an alternative route, I would suggest investing more heavily in |
| 15 |
automated (static or dynamic) analysis of ebuilds to find patterns that are |
| 16 |
incorrect. This has the benefit that every contribution can be checked |
| 17 |
(instead of the skills of some of our contributors, every once in a while), |
| 18 |
and even if it's not free of false positives can act as a way to learn |
| 19 |
about patterns that might be problematic. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Dirkjan |
Archives