On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:35:55PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > Am Wednesday, 28. September 2011, 11:54:38 schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: > > On Sep 28, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote: > > > 2) Setting -dwarning-as-error means that any warning (e.g. a failed > > > barcheck...) will cause a complete failure of the whole regtest build. I > > > think this is way too volatile to be useful. A build should never fail, > > > except for real problems. > > Sure, if the warning is supposed to be there, it will be suppressed and the > file won't fail. But I'm talking about those little oversights that happen > when doing last-second changes before committing.
People shouldn't be doing last-second changes before committing. And if they do so anyway, they should push to the dev/staging branch, so it will be checked before merging to master. > I don't think that an inadvertent warning should hold up all other developers > from testing their own patches. Of course not! But that wouldn't happen, because the broken patch won't get onto master because it'll die in the dev/staging branch. :) > Well, I forgot my last reason: > > 3) We currently have several warnings in the regtest that should not be there. This is a very good reason. > However, there are many more. Those are not expected, so suppressing them is > like painting over the rust without actually fixing it. Unless all those are > fixed, we simply cannot enable warning-as-error. Absolutely! Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
