Re: why do people introduce stup^Wstrange changes to quilt 3.0 format
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> writes:
> On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you don't care about checking the patches, it takes fifteen minutes
>> one time to write a shell script and then less than ten seconds to run
>> it before you do an upload.
> See my other answer. This is conceptually wrong, because you might
> end up with a *wrong* patch and the old one is destroyed due to the
> refresh (patch just messed it up .. and I didn't realize it, uuups).
> I am against this kind of automatism. I prefer to be *reminded* that
> there is something worth looking into.
In your previous message, it sounded like you weren't concerned about the
fuzz because you trusted your testing process. Apparently you feel this
does require manual inspection after all?
I'm confused by the idea that you are opposed to silencing the warning
because you know it's something that you need to look at, but you're
extremely angry that dpkg-source wants you to look at it before you upload
to the archive. If you're going to need to look at it eventually, why not
before you upload it for installation on other people's machines?
Anyway, if you want to clear the fuzz but record that the patch may
require further attention, that's also pretty trivial:
quilt push > fuzz
(echo ''; echo "Patch was fuzzy on" `date`; cat fuzz) | quilt header -a
rm fuzz
quilt refresh
to add the fuzzy output from the patch to the patch header for later
inspection.
> Again, my responsability, that is what I want. Not dpkg-source holding
> my hand like a baby: "don't don't don't do that!"
Maybe it's because I do software development as my day job and am a huge
fan of test-driven development, but I'm generally in favor of software
holding my hand like a baby and telling me that I didn't run the test
suite, didn't make all the tests pass, or introduced warnings. It
prevents me from doing things for the sake of expediency that waste huge
amounts of my time later. That's why I use Lintian, turn on all the
compiler warnings, and so forth.
I think you're arguing that a fuzzy patch is probably only a minor issue
and therefore shouldn't result in essentially a package rejection by
dpkg-source, but the alternative is for dpkg-source to do something that's
essentially unsafe. I appreciate it erring on the side of caution and
requiring that someone investigate.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: