On Tuesday 28 February 2006 16:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:17:20 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > Yes, it's an utterly trivial problem, but it is a QA violation. > | > Getting a complete list is something that takes a heck of a lot > | > longer, and I have yet to be convinced that my time would not be > | > better spent elsewhere. > | > | Where is a coding style problem related to quality of code in general > | and assurance in particular? > > It's more relevant than you might think. Screwing up layout like that > breaks various QA checking tools that assume that things are in the > standard format.
Then fix the damn tools. I've had runins with broken tools earlier. If you want the ebuild format to be stricter, well, make portage complain. Otherwise, fix up your parser. > Proper coding style is part of being proper. Coding style issues exist in degrees. White space issues such as these are of very low priority. Broken QA tools should not be an excuse to give them higher priority. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpOKGomfGnJi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
