Apologies these are coming through out of order, thunderbird had a Heart attack On 05/19/2017 06:14 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Friday, 19 May 2017 10:04 Simon Lees wrote:
I'm not saying every warning should be fixed, from the perspective of someone on the review team it does make our jobs much easier when there are less warnings, we then have to go through and work out if the warning is an actual issue or not so it would be much nicer if warnings that aren't going to be fixed are properly suppressed. In most cases when I see a warning for a . in the summary i'll probably ask you to go back and fix it (or if I have the time i'll take the 5 mins to fix it myself and create a new SR), having this particular one as a error instead of a warning would just save us a little time in the future and lets face it the vast majority of packages are fine anyway.
One more heretic idea... Can you possibly imagine a world where there would be no such warning at all and you (and other reviewers) wouldn't have to pester anyone about it? I can and I don't see it as a horrible place where no packager would wan't to live. After all, when you brought the topic of saving time... wouldn't dropping the warning save most?
And just because we are talking about the related topic of Summaries doesn't mean we can't keep talking about descriptions as well, I just didn't have much to add on that topic.
I'm afraid you completely missed the point. And, ironically, exactly in the sense of what my e-mail was about: focusing on a completely unimportant detail and missing the bigger picture.
I really didn't mind jumping from descriptions to summaries. The e-mail was about my concern that openSUSE reviewers focus on fighting completely irrelevant "problems", keep inventing new pointless checks and enforcing existing ones harder. Concern that they convinced themselves about importance of enforcing these formal requirements and achieving absolute uniformity so much that they are unable to see how annoying this has become for package maintainers.
Well as someone who is mostly a package maintainer (and only joined the review team 3 months ago) the only ones I find really annoying are the .desktop file related ones there annoying as (but at the same time those ones are important). All the rest I check the first time I create a package which generally takes 5 minutes and then you don't need to bother again.
Do not take me wrong; in no way I want to say all checks are pointless. But some of them definitely are ("summary should not end with a period" is one of them) and I'm really worried to see that the overall attitude among reviewers is that they should be enforced even harder rather than discarded. And that more and more should be added.
Well as reviewers our job is to enforce the "standard of quality" that the project has decided it wants to keep as the saying goes "we don't make the rules we just enforce them." The right place to change those rules is here so atleast were discussing it in the right place :-) As for the rule in question personally I don't mind either way but i'm hardly one who cares to use correct proper english all the time. There are other people, however, who do care about these things and want summaries to be consistent (same with desktop files) -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B