Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:09:28 +0100 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:35:34 -0600 Lance Albertson > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > | QA shouldn't have to depend on the tools you use. > | > > | > Sure. However, the tree is far too large to check manually for many > | > things. If we were to do the Sekrit Tool's IUSE check manually, for > | > example, we'd still be in app-something, and would have missed many > | > of the screwups. > | > | Then fix the tool. I find it somehow ironic that a member of the QA > | team is trying to force a 'work-around' just to avoid fixing the > | source of the problem. > > How? Writing a full bash parser is extremely difficult and would be a > complete waste of time. It's far saner to assume sane syntax, and just > bail out when crazy stuff is encountered. Sane syntax is not a work > around -- it's a basic thing that should be expected from any source > file that has to be worked on by more than one person, or even one > person over a long period of time.
It should be a basic thing to expect the QA tool knows how to bail out correctly and resume looking for more important critical issues. QA should not revolve around the tools you use. Technical difficulties in the QA tool dealing with weird syntax's should not provoke a red flag on a particular package. Yes, those weirdness issues should be fixed, but the tool should not hinder the overall outcome of the QA process. So what if it takes too much time to fix it, then just have it ignore that package (and mark it to be viewed later by hand) and move on to the next package. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
