Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:33:28 +0200 | From | Michał Mirosław <> | Subject | Re: checkpatch: support deprecated terms checking |
| |
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:07:48PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 09:42:06 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 17:36 +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 07:50:54 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > [] > > > > I do not want to encourage relatively inexperienced people > > > > to run checkpatch and submit inappropriate patches. > > > > > > Me, neither. But, I think providing more warnings and references is better for > > > that. > > > > Unfortunately, the inexperienced _do_ in fact run > > checkpatch on files and submit inappropriate patches. > > > > It's generally a time sink for the experienced > > maintainers to reply. > > > > > Simply limiting checks could allow people submitting inappropriate patches > > > intorducing new uses of deprecated terms. > > > > Tradeoffs... > > > > I expect that patches being reviewed by maintainers > > are preferred over files being inappropriately changed > > by the inexperienced. > > > > Those inappropriate changes should not be encouraged > > by tools placed in the hands of the inexperienced. > > Right, many things are tradeoff. Seems we arrived in the point, though we > still have different opinions. To summarize the pros and cons of my patch from > my perspective: > > Pros 1: Handle future terms deprecated with different reasons and coverages. > Pros 2: Inappropriate patches are avoided if the submitters carefully read the > warning messages. > Cons: Careless people could still bother maintainers by not carefully reading > the message and sending inappropriate patches. > > To me, the pros still seems larger than the cons. I would like to also again > mention that the maintainer who first reported the problem, Michal, told it's > ok with the explicit messaging. Nonethelss, this is just my opinion. > > Attaching the patch addressing your comments for the previous version. The > changes from the previous version are: > > - Make the name of reported terms not too verbose > - Avoid unnecessary initialization of the reported terms hash > - Warn multiple deprecated terms in same line
Hi,
Maybe you could split the meaning of --subjective and --strict, and enable those checks only for --subjective? The test is really hard to do right: you would have to consider the context and not only mere occurrence of a word (heh, I even wrote 'blacklisted' here, since it really is about a night/danger analogy and not political/ethical one).
Best Regards, Michał Mirosław
| |