On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 12:01 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 11:55:39AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat
>>> checkpatch.pl warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward" you get
>>> for taking the time to run it.
>>
>> I don't want to be punished for running checkpatch.pl like I'm supposed
>> to while those who don't can get away with more.
>
> You're not! These are extra morsels of goodness :)
>
>>
>> A --pedantic mode would be fine although probably no one besides the
>> author would use it :).
>
> True :) But you're right, this is probably the better approach. How bout:
>
> --warnings: print coding style warnings in addition to errors, and exit
> failure if encountered
>
> Then default to suppressing warning statements, and --no-fail-on-warn
> behavior.Sounds good to me :). Stefan
