[gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Sergei Trofimovich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

Hello World!

TL;DR:
  This evening I plan to mangle ~3000 ebuilds in the main tree
  by dropping trailing '.' in all 'DESCRIPTION=' fields (except "etc." case)

Long story:

As you may know newest portage release 2.2.11
got a minor (but chatty) QA warning:
    DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character

    https://github.com/gentoo/portage/commit/06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
    https://bugs.gentoo.org/438976

About ~3000 ebuilds are affected, thus I've sketched a mangling script:

    https://github.com/trofi/gentoo-qa/blob/master/check_description.sh

It is nice to use to convert all your large overlays you sync to gx86, etc.

The script does not handle case of multiline description:
    DESCRIPTION="You have to
    clean that yourself."

I'll mangle/commit one package at a time. Hope not to interfere with your
workflow much.

If you have any objections/thoughts please do say so.

Thanks!

-- 

  Sergei

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Bertrand Jacquin]

Hi,

On 2014-08-10 14:22, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:

> The script does not handle case of multiline description:
>     DESCRIPTION="You have to
>     clean that yourself."

You could handle this by reading metadata/md5-cache/*/* instead of 
ebuild itself

But is multiline DESCRIPTION something recommended as it should contain 
a short description ?

-- 
Beber

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:22:11PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> Hello World!
> 
> TL;DR:
>   This evening I plan to mangle ~3000 ebuilds in the main tree
>   by dropping trailing '.' in all 'DESCRIPTION=' fields (except "etc." case)
> 
> Long story:
> 
> As you may know newest portage release 2.2.11
> got a minor (but chatty) QA warning:
>     DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character

Why is this a QA warning in the first place?

I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with '.'. I
asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall that we
have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual never
mentions any such requirement.

If someone can point me to something I'm missing, let me know.
Otherwise, I think the warning should be removed.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Manuel Rüger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/12/2014 03:48 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:22:11PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich
> wrote:
>> Hello World!
>> 
>> TL;DR: This evening I plan to mangle ~3000 ebuilds in the main
>> tree by dropping trailing '.' in all 'DESCRIPTION=' fields
>> (except "etc." case)
>> 
>> Long story:
>> 
>> As you may know newest portage release 2.2.11 got a minor (but
>> chatty) QA warning: DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character
> 
> Why is this a QA warning in the first place?
> 
> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with
> '.'. I asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't
> recall that we have an official policy about it either. Also, the
> devmanual never mentions any such requirement.
> 
> If someone can point me to something I'm missing, let me know. 
> Otherwise, I think the warning should be removed.
> 
> William
> 

These links might be helpful:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786


What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still really want
to enforce this).


Manuel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0
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=bmFg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
 
 *snip*

> These links might be helpful:
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976
> 
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786
> 
> 
> What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still really want
> to enforce this).

I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this a
repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but there was a
feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and shouldn't be worried
about.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Tyler Pohl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

how to i get off these mailing lists?


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:42 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
>
>  *snip*
>
> > These links might be helpful:
> >
> >
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976
> >
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786
> >
> >
> > What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still really want
> > to enforce this).
>
> I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this a
> repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but there was a
> feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and shouldn't be worried
> about.
>
> William
>



-- 
Tyler Pohl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1736 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Duncan]

[Mailed direct and to list.]

Tyler Pohl posted on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:20:17 -0700 as excerpted:

> how to i get off these mailing lists?

Follow the instructions, as found in the headers of every mail on the 
list including the one you replied to, or the ones on the site you 
presumably signed up from?  Seriously:

Headers:

> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>


Page at http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml, clearly linked via the 
lists link on the gentoo homepage:

<quote>

To unsubscribe from a list, send an empty email to:

listname+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org

Note: You must use the identical address that you subscribed with to 
unsubscribe successfully. If your email address is now forwarded/
rewritten beyond your control, please contact the list owner via listname
+owner@lists.gentoo.org with a request for manual removal.

You will then recieve a unsubscription confirmation request (double opt-
in) from the list manager, that you must reply to if you wish to be 
unsubscribed. 

</quote>

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Alex Xu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 272 bytes --]

On 12/08/14 01:29 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Follow the instructions, as found in the headers of every mail on the 
> list including the one you replied to, or the ones on the site you 
> presumably signed up from?  Seriously:

s/presumably //, this list is closed-loop.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[hasufell]

William Hubbs:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>  
>  *snip*
> 
>> These links might be helpful:
>>
>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976
>>
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786
>>
>>
>> What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still really want
>> to enforce this).
> 
> I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this a
> repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but there was a
> feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and shouldn't be worried
> about.
> 

That thread is pretty odd.

First, a sentence does not need to have a predicate. I know that for 99%
sure in german and the english wikipedia article seems to suggest the
same. Correct me if I am wrong.

Second, there are valid descriptions that are full ordinary sentences
without referencing ${PN}:
"Access a working SSH implementation by means of a library".

In addition, repoman doesn't check for full sentences that reference
${PN}, such as:
"Portage is the package management and distribution system for Gentoo".

So we have another (useless) repoman warning with false positives.

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:47 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> First, a sentence does not need to have a predicate. I know that for 99%
> sure in german and the english wikipedia article seems to suggest the
> same. Correct me if I am wrong.
>

In English your typical English class would teach that every sentence
must have a predicate.  From what Google tells me it technically isn't
entirely true, but every sentence generally does contain a verb.  So,
"library that implements SSL" is not a sentence under any
circumstances.

> Second, there are valid descriptions that are full ordinary sentences
> without referencing ${PN}:
> "Access a working SSH implementation by means of a library".
>
> In addition, repoman doesn't check for full sentences that reference
> ${PN}, such as:
> "Portage is the package management and distribution system for Gentoo".
>
> So we have another (useless) repoman warning with false positives.
>

Yeah, at best this seems a bit trivial.  Do we have a policy that
descriptions aren't allowed to be complete sentences?  Many of our
developers are not native English speakers in the first place, so
striving for grammatical perfection is a bit optimistic.  On top of
that, repoman certainly isn't a native English speaker, so expecting
it to achieve grammatical perfection is a really tall order.  And
please don't suggest making languagetool a dependency for portage...

I don't have a problem with QA recommending new tree policies, but if
they're going to do this the QA team ought to first ensure that the
team agrees (however they want to govern that), and then communicate
the policy before implementing it.  I'd also implement it in
documentation before doing so in repoman, otherwise we're going to
have a repoman full of 800 rules whose origin is a mystery.  I'm fine
with QA policies going into effect by default, but communicating them
allows objections to be raised and an appeal made to Council if
necessary before we get too far along.  This isn't just about due
process - it is hard for developers to even comply with a policy they
are unaware of.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/08/14 08:47 AM, hasufell wrote:
> William Hubbs:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 03:59:30AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>> 
>> *snip*
>> 
>>> These links might be helpful:
>>> 
>>> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=06637c4215d55c57517739214c6e0fd6f8f53914
>>>
>>>
>>> 
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=438976
>>> 
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/80786
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What's still missing is a patch for devmanual (if we still
>>> really want to enforce this).
>> 
>> I read the thread, and there was no concensus about making this
>> a repoman check. Some people thought it was a good idea, but
>> there was a feeling that this sort of thing is trivial and
>> shouldn't be worried about.
>> 
> 
> That thread is pretty odd.
> 
> First, a sentence does not need to have a predicate. I know that
> for 99% sure in german and the english wikipedia article seems to
> suggest the same. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Second, there are valid descriptions that are full ordinary
> sentences without referencing ${PN}: "Access a working SSH
> implementation by means of a library".
> 
> In addition, repoman doesn't check for full sentences that
> reference ${PN}, such as: "Portage is the package management and
> distribution system for Gentoo".
> 
> So we have another (useless) repoman warning with false positives.
> 

TL;DR -- is there any technical reason as to why a DESCRIPTION ending
in '.' is bad?  Other than the fact that it adds 3000 unnecessary
bytes to the portage tree?  IE, does it have the possibility of
throwing off tools that strictly adhere to some random spec (although
it doesn't seem like PMS declares anything bad about this either)??

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 :)





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqHIYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCvXQD7BQYtciffNZDCM03vMSlNAgQh
s4j3dw3tL9VDe/oiq7kA/25lVdaRqAc/mbdiI5surUOG9a0J+1sk/nrVft4ocnSs
=8273
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----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.

Thoughts?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqHwoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAVvgEAqNY3pl+QartxGxiTnEPuycl3
4za+QK26KuNUGO0RJewA/0EIV6z92TG3hr+eLDViIJxfdB0GVTl6JV6ha/EQUZcY
=49jq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[hasufell]

Rich Freeman:
> so striving for grammatical perfection is a bit optimistic.

In that case, we should just rm the repoman warning and stop discussing
this matter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:26:07AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
 
 *snip*

> Yeah, at best this seems a bit trivial.  Do we have a policy that
> descriptions aren't allowed to be complete sentences?  Many of our
> developers are not native English speakers in the first place, so
> striving for grammatical perfection is a bit optimistic.  On top of
> that, repoman certainly isn't a native English speaker, so expecting
> it to achieve grammatical perfection is a really tall order.  And
> please don't suggest making languagetool a dependency for portage...
 
No, we do not have, and there has been no request for, a qa policy that
requires description to not end with a '.'. Also, it is not documented
in the devmanual. So, it appears that this warning was put in place
without involving the QA team at all.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

What, specifically, are we considering trivial?

The whole point of repoman is to prevent devs from making mistakes.
Being able to turn off warnings is counterproductive.  Eliminating
warnings that don't need to be warnings is of course fine.

There is no value in having an escalating battle between warnings and
options to suppress them.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/08/14 12:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> What, specifically, are we considering trivial?
> 
> The whole point of repoman is to prevent devs from making
> mistakes. Being able to turn off warnings is counterproductive.
> Eliminating warnings that don't need to be warnings is of course
> fine.
> 
> There is no value in having an escalating battle between warnings
> and options to suppress them.
> 
> Rich
> 

Well, there's warnings related to style, like
DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period, and then there's warnings relating to
technical or functional issues.  Of the second set, there are fatal
ones and then there are ones that aren't fatal but still important
(DEPENDENCY.badindev comes to mind).  I think the style or other
non-functional warnings (i can't actually think of any that aren't
style related, tbh) are great to have, and perhaps should even be
expanded if someone felt so inclined, but not at the expense of
additional noise all the time for groups like QA that are primarily
concerned about maintaining functionality.  So instead of, for
instance, dropping the DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could
instead be relegated to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag.

Essentially what it boils down to is that I don't see every non-fatal
warning as being equivalent in importance, and it might make sense to
push the ones that could be construed as recommendations rather than
warnings to a lighter level.

If there isn't any support for this idea, then of course let's skip it
and we can drop the check(s) instead if that's what's desired by the
community.  Then it's just a question of how far we might want to go
in terms of dropping checks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqR28ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCQfQEAgs9Zbpw9rkXjZpJUrM6s0/LZ
mGm1UeLe0iNN0zKn8JwBAJZ2NL1tEDA+8X15UHsT4mBTevK+I3cv9+l6R7j6AtGq
=ptmP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[hasufell]

Ian Stakenvicius:
> So instead of, for
> instance, dropping the DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could
> instead be relegated to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag.

It will still be broken, even if you hide it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/08/14 01:08 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius:
>> So instead of, for instance, dropping the
>> DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could instead be relegated
>> to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag.
> 
> It will still be broken, even if you hide it.
> 

Say it's fixed so it doesn't do false-positives anymore, etc. etc.

I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just
because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement.
The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken
and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqSyYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAMZAD/QMy3mmz9yL9kKLfcrNlf737X
9+iJjspqMrp/h8PV19oA/3fQExM/yGUBinM5CWFx6lvYz1pL2daeyxUgMRxtcxDB
=ki6s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just
> because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement.
> The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken
> and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around.
>

If we are bothered enough by something to have repoman check it, we
can be bothered enough to add it to the devmanual.

I think we need to decide whether we care about periods at the ends of
DESCRIPTIONs.  If we do, then it should be a warning and devs should
fix their ebuilds at the next convenient opportunity.  If we don't,
then let's just drop the warning.

I'm fine with the separation of hard/soft errors, because some issues
could be situational and left to developer discretion.  However, we
wouldn't want to hide those, because if a dev introduces a new issue
we don't want them to not see the warning.

If somebody has a whitespace issue they should get a warning.  They
should be doing a scan before commit, and they should generally take
the time to fix the issue, even though it is just style.  What is the
point in having a style guideline if half of us are just going to
ignore warnings related to it.  That doesn't mean that our style
guidelines have to be over-the-top - the solution to that is to drop
requirements that aren't important, not to hide them.

If somebody wants to come up with a bunch of extra optional repoman
warnings for stuff like style, I think their time would be better
spent coming up with an ebuild pretty-printer or something which just
fixes things instead of whining about things that aren't policy.

Ultimately quality has to be something we invest in for each other's
sake.  If a rule isn't really benefiting anybody, then it doesn't
belong.  Within reason good style helps us all out - bash doesn't care
if the whole ebuild fits on one line with all the phases/variables/etc
in semi-random order, but we impose some sane style so that we can
work in the tree and not rip our eyes out.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1142 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:25:44PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just
> > because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement.
> > The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken
> > and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around.
> >
> 
> If we are bothered enough by something to have repoman check it, we
> can be bothered enough to add it to the devmanual.

I also think "that something" should be added to the devmanual before it
is added to repoman so that developers aren't blind-sided by repoman
warnings like this.


> I think we need to decide whether we care about periods at the ends of
> DESCRIPTIONs.  If we do, then it should be a warning and devs should
> fix their ebuilds at the next convenient opportunity.  If we don't,
> then let's just drop the warning.
 
I think some will have periods and some won't depending on how the
description is written, so this warning is not one that should stay.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 688 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-08-11, o godz. 22:34:06
Bertrand Jacquin <beber@meleeweb.net> napisał(a):

> Hi,
> 
> On 2014-08-10 14:22, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> 
> > The script does not handle case of multiline description:
> >     DESCRIPTION="You have to
> >     clean that yourself."
> 
> You could handle this by reading metadata/md5-cache/*/* instead of 
> ebuild itself
> 
> But is multiline DESCRIPTION something recommended as it should contain 
> a short description ?

Considering that we have length limit on DESCRIPTION that is shorter
than typical line wrapping position, I don't think that we need to
consider multiline DESCRIPTIONs.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Chris Reffett]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/12/2014 9:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
[snip]
> I don't have a problem with QA recommending new tree policies, but 
> if they're going to do this the QA team ought to first ensure that 
> the team agrees (however they want to govern that), and then 
> communicate the policy before implementing it.  I'd also implement 
> it in documentation before doing so in repoman, otherwise we're 
> going to have a repoman full of 800 rules whose origin is a 
> mystery.  I'm fine with QA policies going into effect by default, 
> but communicating them allows objections to be raised and an
> appeal made to Council if necessary before we get too far along.
> This isn't just about due process - it is hard for developers to
> even comply with a policy they are unaware of.
> 
> Rich
> 
This isn't a QA policy, was not run by us as far as I can tell, and I
don't know where it came from or why it was added. +1 for revert, if
people want to run this by Council or QA later and actually get an
official decision we can talk about putting it back, but for now it's
generating a lot of noise for no real benefit. It's useless checks
like this that make people ignore repoman warnings.

Chris Reffett
QA Team Lead
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAlPqXvAACgkQ23laikJhg1QvTQCffjAZYIzBGBRlp1l/y6iydzTQ
3d0An12lbTbzr7nWe37qtoay7ktWUAs6
=6c3E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1888 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-08-11, o godz. 20:48:20
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:22:11PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > Hello World!
> > 
> > TL;DR:
> >   This evening I plan to mangle ~3000 ebuilds in the main tree
> >   by dropping trailing '.' in all 'DESCRIPTION=' fields (except "etc." case)
> > 
> > Long story:
> > 
> > As you may know newest portage release 2.2.11
> > got a minor (but chatty) QA warning:
> >     DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character
> 
> Why is this a QA warning in the first place?

Because it is a common mistake, and having the warning in-place should
help people avoid repeating it.

> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with '.'. I
> asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall that we
> have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual never
> mentions any such requirement.

I don't know if and where it is documented but that's what I was taught
when I started contributing to Gentoo, and it pretty much follows
the common sense. DESCRIPTION is supposed to be short and descriptive.
So you do an elliptical sentence (if I got the right translation),
and that doesn't end with a dot.

If you have any fair reason to not follow this, please speak of it.
Otherwise, this is pure bikeshed and waste of time. This thread already
took much more time than fixing your packages if repoman complained
about them.

> If someone can point me to something I'm missing, let me know.
> Otherwise, I think the warning should be removed.

Even if there were no written-down policy, why would it be removed?
What is the benefit of removing the check that resulted in many fixes
already? Do you want to revert the removals afterwards? Or do you want
to introduce new packages which use '.' there?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1936 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-08-12, o godz. 10:04:58
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----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 <axs@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-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[hasufell]

Chris Reffett:
> 
> if people want to run this by Council

I'll laugh my ass off if this thing makes it on the council agenda xD

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Friends,

the repoman patch is reverted. And that is the end of this.

I do not have gx86 access, so if someone wants me to revert 3K commits
there, I'll need a proxy...
- -- 
Alexander
bernalex@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqjnIACgkQRtClrXBQc7W8NwD8CuFNEf7Bwn28Nej6hU2rx+eh
Ms0J17N1k4kj4uEGb4YA/jPWqlOzm9kf0AvR6rQXZzusNmpAsFOTokrO8A98Kza9
=2zAm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Tom Wijsman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1393 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:48:20 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 03:22:11PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > Hello World!
> > 
> > TL;DR:
> >   This evening I plan to mangle ~3000 ebuilds in the main tree
> >   by dropping trailing '.' in all 'DESCRIPTION=' fields (except
> > "etc." case)
> > 
> > Long story:
> > 
> > As you may know newest portage release 2.2.11
> > got a minor (but chatty) QA warning:
> >     DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character
> 
> Why is this a QA warning in the first place?

It isn't or shouldn't be; in the future, it would be nice if this type
passes by QA / Council before being acked into the Portage tree code.

Looking at the commit, the ack / commit has completely bypassed QA; we
also were not involved on the related bug, thus we were unaware of it.

> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with
> '.'. I asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall
> that we have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual
> never mentions any such requirement.

It has been a common belief to drop '.' among some from what I've seen.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman --nonag (was Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings )

[Tom Wijsman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:04:58 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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?

What is the point of a repoman 'warning' if it doesn't nag anymore?

> 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.

For all I know the QA team tries to get rid of them where we can with
the resources available; we're not necessarily tired of seeing them, but
what is the point in having such repoman 'warning' if maintainers as a
whole don't pursue the same goal as the QA team is trying to do here?

These repoman warnings don't block commits; so, they're not problematic
in terms of being able to do your workflow. There has been talk by
Patrick to turn some of the warnings into errors, but that doesn't imply
that the QA team or community necessarily thinks in the same way.

So, I don't think that's something to worry about; especially with the
increased awareness after the DESCRIPTION.punctuation happening.

- -- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT6yY7AAoJEPWZc8roOL/Q9YcH/1uQ4yxS19X/EKb0x3RZWK5M
Yk3HRJoFidD1q0mcVhqmYs8ZU+y6kppE3yHw0hpPMt3yEzym9ObB+EFl8C4841cr
3wlyY4hLNjn+hHvgiZMi3c2+OTiKZB02z7sZ/gRb5Q0oWWINZn7buWGvI0Y2iuk/
URKjn73yPsg4EisPDrfpX8NdHqSZP5MV1/EFibU0zmd97L0O/mcB/UvTOMQYegyL
NEE9hLPcrU9BTl4KYsRCDhqssKu7RFsMtbuzHHrswmSMUtPtUcjeVt5EFTjYt+0k
lzDEGREh9kYd87vapeUmShTZXJcK8TnwDDwh2qbNcc+M8fgOoqTbR1rmOiIjFwA=
=cFld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Duncan]

Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:38:45 +0200 as excerpted:

>> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with '.'.
>> I asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall that we
>> have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual never
>> mentions any such requirement.
> 
> It has been a common belief to drop '.' among some from what I've seen.

[Observational/skippable.]

FWIW, I've been watching this debate with some amusement, as I follow 
Language Log, which has a continuing serious covering the generational/
regional differences in period/full-stop interpretation.

The first in the series and my favorite, due to the cartoon illustrating 
the issue (Nov. 2012):

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4304

Two newer installations of the series (Nov 2013 and Aug 1, 2014, 
respectively):

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=8667
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13723


It can be a big deal for some.  Quoting from the first comment on the 
first article (and noting that what we call a "period" US-English is a 
"full stop" in UK-English):

Obviously, a period is a full stop, but, in short text messages, I feel 
like it almost SAYS full stop, with all the attendant emphasis of that 
phrase. "Best movie ever" is one thing, but "Best. Movie. Ever." is quite 
another.


Back to gentoo and the current "Much ado about nothing".  Someone's 
irritated with the periods/full-stops following short descriptions, 
because to him it's disruptive, almost as if an exclamation point (which 
I /would/ find disruptive) was used, such that for him a repoman check is 
warranted.

But to many others, it's trivial, certainly nothing worth bothering with 
a repoman check and hundreds of individual fixes with concurrent changelog 
entries.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-x86 tree cleanup for 'DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character' warnings

[Ben de Groot]

On 13 August 2014 02:46, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dnia 2014-08-11, o godz. 20:48:20
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>> > got a minor (but chatty) QA warning:
>> >     DESCRIPTION ends with a '.' character
>>
>> Why is this a QA warning in the first place?
>
> Because it is a common mistake, and having the warning in-place should
> help people avoid repeating it.

This is correct.

>> I don't recall a policy mandating that descriptions can't end with '.'. I
>> asked our QA lead about it and was told that he didn't recall that we
>> have an official policy about it either. Also, the devmanual never
>> mentions any such requirement.
>
> I don't know if and where it is documented but that's what I was taught
> when I started contributing to Gentoo, and it pretty much follows
> the common sense. DESCRIPTION is supposed to be short and descriptive.
> So you do an elliptical sentence (if I got the right translation),
> and that doesn't end with a dot.

Again, this is what I was taught as well. It may have been an
undocumented rule, but it has been around for as long as I can
remember. It also makes linguistic sense, and as an English teacher it
always irks me when I see this mistake.

> If you have any fair reason to not follow this, please speak of it.
> Otherwise, this is pure bikeshed and waste of time. This thread already
> took much more time than fixing your packages if repoman complained
> about them.

Amen!

>> If someone can point me to something I'm missing, let me know.
>> Otherwise, I think the warning should be removed.
>
> Even if there were no written-down policy, why would it be removed?
> What is the benefit of removing the check that resulted in many fixes
> already? Do you want to revert the removals afterwards? Or do you want
> to introduce new packages which use '.' there?

I completely support this argument. The warning is correct and should
remain in place.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer