On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 13:33 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:11:09PM +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: > > On a Friday in 2020, Peter Krempa wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:33:00 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > > > We don't check for "master", because there are too many > > > > cases that we're not trying to eliminate at this time. > > > > > > > > Even if you consider the terms undesirable, consider using them in > > the > > commit summary instead of mentioning what you're not trying to do. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > build-aux/syntax-check.mk | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > > > > > I don't think there's a technical reason forbiding these and it's > > > almost > > > borderline censorship. I refuse to put my R-b on this one. > > > > > > > Given how many files are excepted, I think it's a waste of > > electricty to > > even check for these. > > We have > 10,000 files in source control, of which only 150 are > exempted and time required to check that won't even register > in the noise. We shouldn't be relying on reviewers to check things > that can trivially be automated, when we know reviewers often miss > things. > > Regards, > Daniel Personally, I would be glad to have syntax-check catch a patch of mine if I accidentally use one of these terms that we've decided are undesirable. If it is necessary to use one of these terms in a patch, and I can convince others that it is necessary, I can always submit a patch adding an exception. But it forces me to think about the terminology a bit more carefully, which seems like a reasonable thing. I see no censorship concerns. Jonathon
