On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 02:52 -0800, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:23:49 +0100 > Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Introduce a new configuration file for assigning QA check significance > > levels to PGnnnn policies. Long-term goal is that this will permit > > unified configuration of various QA tools, including pkgcheck, repoman > > and install-qa-check.d. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <[email protected]> > > --- > > metadata/policy.conf | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 metadata/policy.conf > > > > diff --git a/metadata/policy.conf b/metadata/policy.conf > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..824598063cc1 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/metadata/policy.conf > > @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ > > +# Copyright 2020 Gentoo Authors > > +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 > > + > > +# The policy section assigns significance levels to various policies. > > +# Keys are identifiers from the Policy Guide, values are either > > +# 'notice', 'warninging' or 'error'. > extra ing here
Fixed. > > +# > > +# The rule of thumb is that 'error' indicates a serious problem that > > +# may cause serious problem to the end users and therefore should block > > +# committing / deployment. 'Warning' should be fixed by developer > capital W probably should be w Sure, fixed. > > +# but does not need to immediately prevent committing. > > +# > > +# https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/std-policy-index.html > > + > > Looks really interesting. > Will overlays be able to define their own policy ? That's the idea. > Maybe rename file to metadata/qa-policy.conf ? just policy.conf is ambiguous. What other kind of policies do you expect? ;-) -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
