Richard Lowe writes: > turdchk walks changesets, which should be sorted into increasing > numerical order by revision anyway. > > I can make that more explicit at the expense of a needless sort, if > you'd prefer?
No; that explanation works for me. > > A somewhat off-topic comment: should we really call merge errors > > 'turds'? I know that's what the gatekeepers call the problem, but our > > developer tools haven't previously used that word, as far as I know. > > At least in some places, I think that scatological term might be > > somewhat (and needlessly) offensive. > > I asked this at the time, and while one person did say something much > like the above, everyone else's view was that it was the common term > in use. I'd say if you feel strongly enough that it should be > changed, come up with alternate but equally understandable/common > wording and file a bug. The distinction I'm drawing is between intra-gatekeeper chatter (which often does use that word) and the common tool set made available to developers (which does not). I agree that it's a terme d'art among the former, but I'm not so sure that makes it a good idea. If it's possible to avoid it, I do feel moderately strongly that we should avoid using something that's just _needlessly_ offensive. If "merge error" is too generic, how about "incomplete merge"? I'll file a bug. > > (As for the filter itself, a nit: using a double-negative -- as in > > 'unmodified=False' -- seems as though it makes the code a bit harder > > to read. But making a readability comment in Python code is probably > > raising a moot point anyway. :->) > > Yeah, I'm not keen on it at this point, either. I expect to remove it > with the fix for #416. OK; I figured so, but felt I had to mention it anyway. ;-} -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
