> On 21 Feb 2021, at 04:30, Tim Harder <radher...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Is there interest in enforcing some basic QA for the semi-formatted > comments in profiles/package.mask (and possibly other profiles file > types)? I have code implementing the basic functionality done for > pkgcheck, but wondered if the format should be standardized and > documented more than it may be already before support is merged. >
I definitely have interest in this. Every so often, I find a class of mistakes like incorrectly-ordered masks, wrong email format, and so on, and fix them in the area I’m touching as it’s cheap to fix whatever file I’m on - not necessarily so to fix every single one in profiles/. This also gives us scope to make requirements like e.g. a bug reference, clear date for removal if last-rites, and generally be a bit more verbose by making clear what the expectations are for message content. (There is a clear benefit for last-rites having at least one bug — it gives users a chance to object or mention alternatives.) Anyway, not trying to bikeshed re last-rites process, I just mean there’s definitely a collection of uses here. Thanks for working on it. Note that this was brought up last month too by jstein, so there is definitely other interest: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/0600146362529770aa88225b29de46ae. > Also, I'm unsure it's been noticed but `pkgcheck scan --commits` now > verifies any profile changes done in git commits so this support would > automatically get run for package.mask changes (and other enabled files) > when using pkgcheck locally in that fashion. > > Thanks, > Tim >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
