Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 14∶50 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can > > leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally. > > WFM. Or even better, leave defunct -d/--include-dev in place (in order > not to break peoples' scripts) and add a long --no-include-dev option. > ...which would be inconsistent with -e/--include-exp-profiles. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can > leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally. WFM. Or even better, leave defunct -d/--include-dev in place (in order not to break peoples' scripts) and add a long --no-include-dev option. Ulrich pgppFpmvLee_2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 13∶08 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > > It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an > > > argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, > > > and simply not specifying it to disable? > > What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not > > specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to > > require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required > > behavior. > > My remark was about syntax, not about semantics. "-d y" and "-d n" > instead of "-d" and "(nothing)" is a crappy user interface. > > Maybe unify things into "--include-profiles=" (with a > comma separated list of "stable", "dev", and "exp") or > "--include-profile-level=" with n=0 for stable, n=1 for stable+dev, > etc.? > I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: >> It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an >> argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, >> and simply not specifying it to disable? > What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not > specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to > require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required > behavior. My remark was about syntax, not about semantics. "-d y" and "-d n" instead of "-d" and "(nothing)" is a crappy user interface. Maybe unify things into "--include-profiles=" (with a comma separated list of "stable", "dev", and "exp") or "--include-profile-level=" with n=0 for stable, n=1 for stable+dev, etc.? Ulrich pgpRefoLzQiiY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 12∶48 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > parser.add_argument( > > '-d', '--include-dev-profiles', choices=('y', 'n'), > > metavar='', > > - default='n', > > + default='y', > > help='include dev profiles in dependency checks') > > It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an > argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, and > simply not specifying it to disable? > What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required behavior. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > parser.add_argument( > '-d', '--include-dev-profiles', choices=('y', 'n'), > metavar='', > - default='n', > + default='y', > help='include dev profiles in dependency checks') It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, and simply not specifying it to disable? Ulrich pgpXXL5a128zO.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] repoman: Enable testing dev profiles by default
Enable testing 'dev' profiles by default. Those profiles are in the way of becoming stable, and therefore it is crucial that developers test that their changes do not break them. Instead of requiring developers to explicitly type 'repoman full -d' all the time, just test them by default. --- repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py| 2 +- repoman/pym/repoman/tests/simple/test_simple.py | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py b/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py index 2e8aee1b6..3359e2f65 100644 --- a/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py +++ b/repoman/pym/repoman/argparser.py @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ def parse_args(argv, qahelp, repoman_default_opts): parser.add_argument( '-d', '--include-dev-profiles', choices=('y', 'n'), metavar='', - default='n', + default='y', help='include dev profiles in dependency checks') parser.add_argument( diff --git a/repoman/pym/repoman/tests/simple/test_simple.py b/repoman/pym/repoman/tests/simple/test_simple.py index 494152eca..f254336d9 100644 --- a/repoman/pym/repoman/tests/simple/test_simple.py +++ b/repoman/pym/repoman/tests/simple/test_simple.py @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ class SimpleRepomanTestCase(TestCase): ("", git_cmd + ("init-db",)), ("", git_cmd + ("add", ".")), ("", git_cmd + ("commit", "-a", "-m", "add whole repo")), - ("", repoman_cmd + ("full", "-d", "y")), + ("", repoman_cmd + ("full",)), ("", cp_cmd + (test_ebuild, test_ebuild[:-8] + "2.ebuild")), ("", git_cmd + ("add", test_ebuild[:-8] + "2.ebuild")), ("", repoman_cmd + ("commit", "-m", "cat/pkg: bump to version 2")), -- 2.16.2