Mike Frysinger wrote: > ..the proposal is to utilize the existing eclass documentation markers > ..the metadata stays current, and we can scale better to all eclasses
> if people don't properly document their eclasses, repoman might throw > false positives (warnings, not errors) about unused eclasses > will miss throwing errors when functions are used but the respective > eclasses aren't inherited. > however, i think that's a good hammer to throw at eclass maintainers to > keep their documentation up-to-date and accurate. > any other opinions/feedback? I think it's an excellent idea to give this kind of QA early, to avoid issues like recent eutils inheritance changes in the future; it's not a hammer so much as a helpful reminder, that improves things for everyone. You could maybe tighten the false-negative side by scanning all functions defined in an eclass, and warning if they're undocumented. Steve. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
