automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: maintainer checks


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: maintainer checks
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:20:28 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 04:33:18PM CET:
> On Saturday 20 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:15:12AM CET:
> > >  
> > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-07/msg00084.html>
> > 
> > Gnulib has a few more facilities in this area, and several GNU projects
> > use them already.
> >
> Do these facilities allow whitelisting at least at the "file:line" level?
> Do they allow whitelisting through (possibly file-specific) regexps?  If
> yes, then I agree that we should use them instead of diverging more and
> add more code duplication.  If not, they are not flexible enough IMHO.

I don't know if they do.  If they are not flexible enough, then the way
to go is to improve them, so that other GNU packages can benefit as
well.  NIH is not helpful here.

For what it's worth, file:line notation is not ideal because it is
maintenance-intensive for files which change regularly.  If granularity
below the file name level is needed at all, then something like regex or
file name plus regex can be better, see ctags output for an example
notation.  Even file name plus number of offending lines is more stable
than file plus line (we use that in a couple of maintainer-check rules).

> > Another nit at cited patch of yours is that makefile rules run in
> > parallel, the perl script tests don't.
> >
> ATM, the time required to run all the maintchecks is low enough that
> this is not a problem.  And IMHO we can always optimize later if speed
> becomes a problem.

Or get the design right from the outset and you won't need to think much
about optimization later.  ;->

Cheers,
Ralf



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]