Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> (2) Rethink if parse_options_check() can be made optional at >> ... >> (3) While (2) is ongoing, we can let people also explore static >> analysis possibilities. > > I agree with you. But I think these two points(specially (2)) deserve > a dedicated discussion/patch thread. Because, the latest version of this > patch series (actually this patch series itself) only cares about the > `usage strings`. Yes, absolutely. So applying [2/2] in haste is not a good idea at all. Before we accumulate more cruft on top, we should stop and think if the approach we are taking is sensible to begin with, or we'll make an already bad situation even worse.
