-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/08/14 01:08 PM, hasufell wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius: >> So instead of, for instance, dropping the >> DESCRIPTION-ending-in-period check, it could instead be relegated >> to a "nag" that could be hidden with --nonag. > > It will still be broken, even if you hide it. >
Say it's fixed so it doesn't do false-positives anymore, etc. etc. I don't consider a recommended style message to be 'broken' just because it's not listed in the devmanual/PMS/etc as a requirement. The implementation of it, on the other hand, yes that could be broken and in this case should be fixed if we keep the check around. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPqSyYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAMZAD/QMy3mmz9yL9kKLfcrNlf737X 9+iJjspqMrp/h8PV19oA/3fQExM/yGUBinM5CWFx6lvYz1pL2daeyxUgMRxtcxDB =ki6s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
