On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:55:52 +0100 Colomban Wendling <lists....@herbesfolles.org> wrote:
> Le 12/03/2011 10:49, Lex Trotman a écrit : > > On 12 March 2011 20:21, Frank Lanitz <fr...@frank.uvena.de> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:53:47 +0100 > >> Colomban Wendling <lists....@herbesfolles.org> wrote: > >> > >>>> Maaaybe, sort of see your point, but not really convinced that > >>>> uprating warnings to errors is a good idea on the dev codebase, > >>>> it stops people trying and testing things. > >>> Unfortunately, believe me that non-fatal warnings are use to be > >>> ignored by unexperienced programmers, believing that if their code > >>> compile it is then OK. > >>> And I don't see why a warning upgraded to an error on every build > >>> would be worst than a syntactical problem (as I described above > >>> previously)? In a typical situation, the developer who writes the > >>> plugin should get the warning (well, the error), see his plugin > >>> don't build, care (hopefully :D), and then fix it directly even > >>> before committing and then before anybody else could face the > >>> problem. Don't you think? > >> > >> Just thinking about adding a flag which is activating a paranoid > >> check inside default build system and which lead into failing > >> buildsin such a case. This would give plugin devs the chance to > >> fix their code on one hand and unexperienced people which just > >> want to test to have a build they can do their stuff with. > > > > Yeah, so long as it doesn't make the whole system too complicated > > and is well documented, it has to be easily usable and > > maintainable :-) > It would be easy to add a flag to enable/disable the warnings > (actually I already had a flag to disable the warnings, thought they > was enabled by default). However in Autotools side it's probably only > really doable at configure-time, don't know for Waf. > > So you'd prefer what: > 1) enable warnings by default, and propose some to errors with a flag > 2) no warnings by default, can be enabled by a flag (with or wtithout > error promotion?) > > IMHO 1) is better so the developers gets the warnings, and it would > still please everyone since these wouldn't be fatal -- only ugly :D. > > If we finally agree with the flags I suggested minus the errors, I > could set this up soon. Needs agreement (or not) then :) I think we shall start with the compiling flags (I'm not this familiar with them so I cannot say which of them are really useful) with just warnings for the start. This should give a first impression to everybody where we are and some period we can do the next steps. As a new release for Geany-plugins is not scheduled yet it should also be fine to add them in a first step directly. Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
pgpEFumeEVwcX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
