http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3340
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-01 20:20 -------
Subject: Re: RFE: --check-for-errors
Oops, forgot to change the reply to Bugzilla. Sorry.
> Well, we were thinking "--lint" reports errors, "--lint --debug" or "-D
> - --lint" would report errors and warnings (since warnings would be
> generated as debug-level messages from --lint).
But -D in general throws TONS of messages whether anything is broken or not,
making it virtually necessary to then write a filter script to see if any of
those messages actually were any sort of lint error or warning. And I can't
see you wanting --lint to *reduce* the amount of debug output from -D, since
that would make it impossible to debug lint problems.
Unless you were thinking that "-D --lint" and "--lint -D" had different
semantics? (I hope not!)
I'm not sure what, if anything, --debug does currently. If it is a new
word, I suppose that it would be usable, if a misnomer. We aren't talking
about debug output here. We are talking about *warning* output, an entirely
different concept. "--lint --warn" I suppose could be usable in this
context; at least it would be talking about the right order of things. I
think if the objection is the number of arguments possible, then I'm in
favor of "--lint[=<lintlevel>]" where lintlevel might be 1,2,3 or
warnings,errors, or whatever else might seem appropriate.
Loren
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
