On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:15 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Tom Berger <[email protected]> wrote: ... > >> Since make lint will always report the issue, I strongly suspect > >> engineers are not running make lint at all. > > > > Another thing that happens quite a lot (and I must admit I'm guilty > > myself) is that people do run lint, but ignore warnings that they know > > for certain are not a result of the changes they introduced. If we > > want to enforce lint we could have buildbot run it, but if we do we'll > > have to make sure it produces a reasonable set of warnings. > > > > I suspect that the correct thing is to have a check that stops new > lint from being added. That way, once someone fixes some lint, the > amount of lint is permanently reduced. It also would spare us the > tedious exercise of getting the amount to zero before adding enforcing > rules.
I like this idea. We have not been successful in the past. Our pylint setting are are not checking things like docstrings because it was considered too much of a burden to fix. The idea was to get most of the lint out of lp's code before we made standard stricter. > Alternatively, we could add a unit test that asserts that the amount > of lint is a particular number, and then have an honesty policy of > never increasing the number. I think Bazaar do this for some of their > performance tests. Adding a test to get a score might be something we can graph. I like pictures. -- __Curtis C. Hovey_________ http://launchpad.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
