svn commit: r401299 - head/security/openssh-portable/files

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 06:40:04PM -0800, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 11/11/15 6:12 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:21:45PM +0000, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> >> New Revision: 401299
> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/401299
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   Make portlint stop spamming me.  It's gotten quite silly.
> > 
> > [...]
> > As John had said on IRC, this helps to get consistent patches, because
> > prople rarely think about these little details ("repo churn? who cares
> > about it") and portlint(1) warning gives them simple and straight course
> > of action.  Yet it's true that the check could probably be made somewhat
> > smarter than simple grepping for "UTC".
> > 
> > TL;DR: instead of adding noise to the patches, it's better to improve
> > portlint(1).  Or learn how to ignore its warnings. ;-)
> 
> We should just ignore portlint at our own discretion since it grows
> stupid warnings like this?

Ignoring stupid warnings was listed second after improving portlint(1).
But yes, portlint(1) can be wrong, so, answering your question, yes, "we
should just ignore portlint at our own discretion".  Every software has
bugs, checkers can give false positives.

> Mission accomplished?

Mission is not to follow *everything* any lint tool tells you about your
code and stuff.  The mission is to have that stuff working and neat, with
some tools' help or without.

That's why I think that adding noise to patches is wrong approach: it makes
the stuff (patches) less neat and thus portlint(1) warnings more important,
while it should be the other way around.

./danfe