On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:20:46PM +0000, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 19 March 2017 at 16:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> > 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
