Hi Bruno, thanks for your reply!
On 05.09.2011 21:45, Bruno Haible wrote: > I don't think it makes sense to run such stylistic checks on files that > are not under your control. po/Makefile.in.in is owned by the gettext > maintainer, and the *.po files are in the hands of the translators. > In other words: I would disable these checks for the po/ directory. Makes sense. Will only have to figure out what exactly "these checks" entails, as I believe that there are syntax checks which should apply to those files as well, for the sake of portability. I wonder whether it makes sense to split syntax checks into two groups, one for minor issues which you should fix if things are under your control, and one for major things which you should report upstream if things are out of your control? I'm not sure the border between these two will be clear, so I'm not convinced myself, but I know I don't fancy adjusting the exclusions whenever gnulib adds a (minor) syntax check which my code fails for some reason. Note that the sc_prohibit_doubled_word check could fail for files under the maintainer's control as well, e.g. for non-ASCII source code comments, names in particular. Chances are even smaller, but I still consider the check slightly broken. Greetings, Martin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
