From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F666158064 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 04:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79CAEE2A1E; Fri, 3 May 2024 04:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34602E2A13 for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 04:39:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Sam James To: Eli Schwartz Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] vdr-plugin-2.eclass: make qa warning conditional In-Reply-To: <4dc6df27-4efa-47b1-8ddd-4bdd08a08b21@gmail.com> (Eli Schwartz's message of "Wed, 1 May 2024 11:07:07 -0400") Organization: Gentoo References: <7e5a29e3-43e4-4af9-b7c5-660501a027a8@gmx.net> <4dc6df27-4efa-47b1-8ddd-4bdd08a08b21@gmail.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.4; emacs 30.0.50 Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 05:39:18 +0100 Message-ID: <87cyq3ldah.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7a076bd5-66b7-4fea-bc4f-f78cfe34def5 X-Archives-Hash: bbe8fdfd26660f4511736b438f2a7b1b Eli Schwartz writes: > On 5/1/24 10:10 AM, Martin Dummer wrote: >> Since Agostino's tinderbox tests now report qa warning, the group >> vdr@gentoo.org has 101 open bugs assigned, most of them caused by qa >> warnings from vdr-plugin-2.eclass. >>=20 >> Many vdr plugins need small adjustments because API or makefile changes >> in upstream media-video/vdr which can be easily fixed with small changes. >>=20 >> These warnings are only useful for the vdr plugin maintainers, so I >> propose they should (only) be reported as QA-warnings when the global >> variable >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 VDR_MAINTAINER_MODE=3D"1" >> is set in make.conf >>=20 >> This patch is also put to github in >> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/36504 >>=20 >> The PR is lacking many many "Closes: ...." tags, which I will fill in so= on. >>=20 >> Any comments? > > > What does "only useful for the vdr plugin maintainers" mean? Why can't > anyone fix them? > > There are lots of QA warnings that a package can generate, and lots of > them are "only" relevant to someone editing the upstream source code. > Why should vdr plugins be special? > > From a quick glance at the warning messages, my inexpert feeling is that > two of them are a bit "wishy-washy" and could be classified as "a > warning to be picky and do best practices": > > - gettext handling > - old Makefile handling > > The others seem like worrisome issues that should very much be reported > in tinderboxes and get fixed. What we really need is: a) https://bugs.gentoo.org/162450 to avoid scaring users; b) possibly some level of QA notice to distinguish between "check this out" (think e.g. qa-vdb LHS where it _might_ be unused, but not necessarily), and "this is definitely wrong" I am convinced we need a), I am not-at-all convinced we need b) - at least not in terms of whether bugs are reported. > > Automatically sed'ing out source code, especially for the one that says > "please recheck", very much looks like the purpose of the qa warning is > that the functionality isn't trusted to be correct, is offered on a > best-effort basis, and needs to be manually reviewed and marked as okay > (by applying as a real patch) in order to squelch the warnings. > > In other words, there are "QA issues" and "QA nitpicks".