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 AC811158064 for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 12:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 82CEEE2BC4; Thu, 9 May 2024 12:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.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)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5FBE2BB9 for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 12:13:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Sam James To: Martin Dummer Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Eli Schwartz Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] vdr-plugin-2.eclass: make qa warning conditional In-Reply-To: <5803c021-601d-48b2-bbfa-ce5de555e1cf@gmx.net> (Martin Dummer's message of "Thu, 9 May 2024 14:08:03 +0200") Organization: Gentoo References: <7e5a29e3-43e4-4af9-b7c5-660501a027a8@gmx.net> <4dc6df27-4efa-47b1-8ddd-4bdd08a08b21@gmail.com> <87cyq3ldah.fsf@gentoo.org> <5803c021-601d-48b2-bbfa-ce5de555e1cf@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 13:13:02 +0100 Message-ID: <87le4ji3ox.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 X-Archives-Salt: 20e6599f-a2e7-4bbf-94a7-126c12b1cb0c X-Archives-Hash: 9bf91832212a012a55e08ddaf78ba6ef Martin Dummer writes: > Am 03.05.24 um 06:39 schrieb Sam James: > > > 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. > > AFAIS https://bugs.gentoo.org/162450 is not implemented. Right, that's why I didn't say "we can just use". > > Maybe we can agree that the qa-warnings in vdr-eclass make more sense if i change them to "eawarn" or "einfo"? > Sure, make them eqawarn. > In my opinion, most plugins in the vdr context will practically not develop any further anyway. It is more important to > keep the current status of vdr-software in the ecosystem up to date as well as possible. > > So I need a practical useful approach instead of a fundamental discussion please. My point is that the QA warnings should exist, and you can worry about making them "developer-only" in future. Right now, they seem useful, and the things they flag need to be addressed.