-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/14 03:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-08-12, o godz. 10:04:58 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> > napisał(a): >> 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.
The ricochet more or less ended with the notion that repoman shouldn't be a random style guide, or rather, development time is better spent elsewhere rather than making it into one -- and so there's no use case for "nag" level messages and a flag that would disable them. > 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. Yep, that one was definitely the clincher. you've convinced me! :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqZtEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCDBAD/WJQ8JBPnYD5XuqTMqHygYd5L K24oZzyhAsR1vkSahhgBAIW+hia5MXJd4T4AD8u9hi4xzdxGg/2xpwlYMs0u9VQ8 =vQMn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
