Re: gnome-vfs build issue

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 13:36 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 17:52 +0000, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> >   I don't see any advantage in hardcoding -Werror in makefiles, as
> > opposed to let developers add it to their own CFLAGS.
> I see two advantages.  
> First, it makes it less likely for patch contributors to send buggy
> patches.  For example Rhythmbox has defaulted to -Werror with a bunch of
> other flags such as 
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement and -Wmissing-prototypes for a long time.
> Some people joined IRC to ask about this because they hadn't encountered
> warnings like -Wdeclaration-after-statement before.  It's much faster
> for them to fix it during development then it would be for the
> maintainers to reject the patch and have the contributor redo it, or for
> the maintainer to spend time fixing these things.

  Why not simply making it a policy that only patches that compile
without any warnings are accepted?

> Second, while one can get spurious errors, often the errors caught by 
> -Werror are ones that might not show up on a particular developer's
> machine; e.g. 64-bit pointer/int bugs.  Breaking the compilation makes
> it much more likely that a user compiling from CVS/arch/whatever who
> happens to have a 64-bit machine will see the bug instead of just having
> a random warning scroll by.

  I see.  So you want to coerce users to submit bug reports, even though
they would rather ignore these warnings.  I understand you, but I
disagree.  Bug reporting should be voluntary.  You shouldn't annoy
developers just to make them report bugs.


Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>
The universe is always one step beyond logic

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]