develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

Re: Missing diagnostics - non C task

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
February 8, 2013 04:30
Subject:
Re: Missing diagnostics - non C task
Message ID:
CANgJU+UOvh_M-1qemB2a8va2NKvNOgBZ8O-8iQAOW9veAKsQ0w@mail.gmail.com
On 8 February 2013 05:18, Karl Williamson <public@khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 08:11 PM, James E Keenan wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/13 11:06 AM, demerphq wrote:
>>>
>>> We apparently auto scan for diagnostics, and then auto TODO ones that
>>> are older than a certain age.
>>>
>>
>> Would it be possible to post this as an RT?  We could then reference it
>> in upcoming hackathons?
>>
>> Also, I'm not sure who is the "we" you are referring to and where that
>> "auto scan" or "auto TODO"-ing takes place.  Could you elaborate a bit
>> so that a non-core/P5P person could pick this up more quickly?
>>
>> Thank you very much for raising the issue.
>>
>> Jim Keenan
>>
>
> The test program t/porting/diag.t, run by doing a 'make test', greps through
> the Perl source looking for things that appear to be diagnostic messages,
> and then looks to see if each one is listed in pod/perldiag.pod.  If not, it
> fails that test.  In the .t are hard-coded a bunch of diagnostics which are
> grandfathered in, because any of
>
> 1) there was no explanation for them at the time the test program was
> written;
>
> 2) someone was too lazy to write one, and just added it to the grandfather
> list;
>
> 3) the .t was buggy and didn't correctly match the diagnostic with the
> existing explanation
>
> 4) the person was too busy at the moment, and is planning to add
> explanations before the next release is shipped.
>
> The goal is to go through that list and write the prose explanations to add
> to the pod.
>
> The problem is that someone who isn't very familiar with the code in
> question can write a misleading explanation.  Even someone who is very
> familiar would do well to re-examine the code to verify that s/he isn't
> misleading people by not catching all the appropriate nuances.

Im not really worried about this. We have a review process on the list
of sorts, and many sets of eyes, etc...

So I think if we had some well intentioned contributors make a stab at
improving the list the rest will work itself out in the wash...

Yves


-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About