Dnia 2014-08-12, o godz. 10:04:58 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 12/08/14 09:54 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > > Perhaps we need to have a less-important repoman warning level > > (something that can be quieted with a flag) for things like this? > > In terms of DESCRIPTION consistency I don't see it being a bad > > thing that we have the warning, but i also don't see a point in > > changing the entire tree to get rid of 3000 bytes, esp. since the > > ChangeLog entries added to the tree will add at least 30,000 bytes > > :) > > > > I'm wondering what everyone thinks of having a --nonag option to > repoman and shoving some of the more trivial/style-related repoman > 'warnings' into a 'nag' level warning? IIRC at least one of the QA > team members is so tired of the warnings that they want to make every > single one of them errors; the --nonag option would allow those > warnings to remain in repoman (ie to help guide new dev's or non-dev's > using repoman on their local repos) but since they don't relate to > actual technical breakage they can just be turned off during QA runs, etc. Just don't. I think you missed the point hard and I don't want to know where the ricochet ended. First of all, the QA's issue is not really about verbosity of repoman. It's more about developers who ignore repoman output and commit broken ebuilds which QA needs to fix afterwards. '--nonag' would mean that some developers will introduce even more warnings for others... Secondly, AutoRepoman is already filtering repoman's output. If Patrick disliked a particular warning, he'd filter it already. He doesn't need easy-available repoman option for that. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure I had a third argument but I forgot what it was. But it was totally convincing, I'm sure of it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
