On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:20:46PM +0000, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On 19 March 2017 at 16:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>
wrote:
> > As I wrote it has potentially very useful case to have maximum level
> > reporting compile errors on distribution level.
> > koji could parse build logs and count total number of compile time
> warning
> > and in own build report put that in release N it was more/less such
> > warnings than in Release N-1.
> I think the S/N ratio would be very low here. In previous mail I
> listed various classes of warnings which are best ignored. If you want
> to fix things, go project by project and submit patches upstream.
> Don't force it on all maintainers.
This is not about quantity but *quality* ..
We're speaking past one another
clearly. I also feel you're suggesting
quantity (of warnings) over their quality.
> > In case introduction of new gcc with which may start
reporting new
> warnings
> > full verbosity of the compile warning will allow "in combat" asses
impact
> > reporting these warnings on whole distribution scale.
> > With source tree maintainers email addresses in some database it may be
> > even possible to sent automatic report to these maintainers about those
> > warnings.
> No thank you, but no.
I have allergy on answers "no because no" and similar like
"no thank you,
but no" ;-)
Can you explain why?
I think I gave my reasons pretty clearly: low S/N + automatic
propagation = spam.
Do I need to explain further?
Zbyszek