Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> added the comment:
If reactivated, the tool needs to be substantially improved. It is NOT smart. The false positives for slicing and logging examples are unnecessarily annoying. It creates a barrier for people submitting documentation patches. Each of the 367 entries in the susp-ignored file represents wasted time for contributors. Also the CSV format is arcane, hard-to-read, and hard-to-edit. It looks like it was quickly thrown together by someone who didn't care about usability. Perhaps there should be a simpler tools that says, "take this current failure and mark it as a false positive" without trying to be over specific. Mandatory checks with a high false positive rate are an anti-pattern for CI systems. Already we've had one case of a contributor (me) who abandoned a doc patch rather than fight this tooling. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42238> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
