On 9/12/18 10:50 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM Jason Zaman <perfin...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Replying to a somewhat random post. There are two separate things here >> that people are discussing here but are not the same thing. > > Three, really... > >> >> 1) We want to know when a package has terrible warnings when installing >> it so we can report upstream and know that something might have gone >> wrong. > > There is also the case where we want these warnings to block > installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great. > >> >> Stick this in your make.conf: >> PORTAGE_ELOG_SYSTEM="echo save" >> PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="warn error log qa" >> I'm pretty sure toralf's tinderbox already has these enabled but all >> devs should too. > > The problem is that this will make the warnings non-fatal. > > Do we still tell users not to report these kinds of warnings in > bugzilla? If they're the sort we consider serious then we would want > to know about it so that we can address it, vs just waiting for > upstream to fix them in a future release. > > There might be a better solution than -Werror, such as a flag in an > ebuild that makes the existing QA warning fatal and tells the user to > log a bug. >
Picking random email. I would like to say I'm glad we can discuss our technical differences like this with both sides expressing their opinion and reasoning. I would hope in the future we start with this path and not with disciplinary action or bugs requesting the removal of commit access. We're showing here we can bring up our points without handing out "QA strikes" or some other type of confrontational action. Mike
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
