Re: Lintian based autorejects
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> On a second read of the proposal, it occurred to me (and a handful of
> other DDs in private communications agreed) that the above naming choice
> of "warning" and "error" can be a bit unfortunate. In fact, lintian
> already has its own notion of warning/error and having the naming
> overloaded by dak messages that are based on lintian outcome can be
> quite confusing.
> Can you please consider changing the above naming?
> The first alternative naming that comes to my mind is "non-fatal errors"
> vs "fatal errors". It is not particularly exciting as a choice, but I
> believe it would be better than warning/error.
I think that's a good idea, particularly since I suspect that we'll
upgrade anything in Lintian that's an automatic reject to serious
severity, which will make most of them errors.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: