On 16 Feb 2015 11:45, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
> >
> > some of these are because they produce false positives. at least t
Patrick Lauer:
> "ebuild.badheader",
That would break repoman for the majority of overlays. You don't really
expect overlay maintainers to follow gentoo copyright, do you?
Really... before repoman is fixed, none of this will happen (or people
will just run a hacked repoman version).
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> (Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
>
> "changelog.missing",
> "changelog.notadded",
These two are pretty much irrelevant now that repoman auto-generates
ChangeLog, so
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many
> things, but treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic
> issues which then someone more OCD than the original co
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 21:00:16 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things, but
> treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
> which then someone more OCD than the original co
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
> probably need to be fixed first:
> https://
On 16 Feb 2015 21:00, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
some of these are because they produce false positives. at least these bugs
probably need to be fixed first:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/405017
https://bugs.gentoo.org/488836
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 21:00 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió:
[...]
>
I agree
> Thus I suggest making the following warnings proper errors:
>
> (Taken from current repoman 'qawarnings' set)
>
> "changelog.missing",
> "changelog.notadded",
> "digest.assumed",
> "digest.unused",
> "ebuild.notadded",
> "ebuild.nesteddie",
> "DESCRIPTION.toolong",
> "RESTRICT.invalid",
> "ebui
On Feb 16, 2015 8:01 AM, "Patrick Lauer" wrote:
>
> Right now repoman is relatively permissive - it whines about many things,
but
> treats many issues as warning.
> The result is that many ebuilds get committed with 'minor' cosmetic issues
> which then someone more OCD than the original committer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/02/15 14:02, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> FWIW: I'm in the "warnings are pointless, either we care about
> something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it)".
s/\./ camp./
(I accidentally a word...)
- --
Alexander
berna...@gento
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
FWIW: I'm in the "warnings are pointless, either we care about
something (so make it an error), or we don't (so get rid of it)".
- --
Alexander
berna...@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
12 matches
Mail list logo
