Re: maintainer checks

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Saturday 20 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> For what it's worth, file:line notation is not ideal because it is
> maintenance-intensive for files which change regularly.
>
Just to be clear: my script support *both* the "file:line" notation 
and the "file" noation.  The support for "file:rexeg" is not currently
built-in (the user has to take some steps/hacks by hand to support it,
but that's not much difficult); I'll try to make it builtin if there is
still interest in the patch.

> If granularity below the file name level is needed at all, then something
> like regex or file name plus regex can be better, see ctags output for an
> example
> notation.  Even file name plus number of offending lines is more stable
> than file plus line (we use that in a couple of maintainer-check rules).
> 
> > > Another nit at cited patch of yours is that makefile rules run in
> > > parallel, the perl script tests don't.
> > >
> > ATM, the time required to run all the maintchecks is low enough that
> > this is not a problem.  And IMHO we can always optimize later if speed
> > becomes a problem.
> 
> Or get the design right from the outset and you won't need to think much
> about optimization later.  ;->
>
Well, if there's interest in the script, I'll be glad to discuss its
design (in fact, we'd need have a discussion anyway about the best way
to support VPATH builds).

Regards,
  Stefano