On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:49:10 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2011 20:21, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:53:47 +0100 Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Maaaybe, sort of see your point, but not really convinced that uprating warnings to errors is a good idea on the dev codebase, it stops people trying and testing things.
Unfortunately, believe me that non-fatal warnings are use to be ignored by unexperienced programmers, believing that if their code compile it is then OK. And I don't see why a warning upgraded to an error on every build would be worst than a syntactical problem (as I described above previously)? In a typical situation, the developer who writes the plugin should get the warning (well, the error), see his plugin don't build, care (hopefully :D), and then fix it directly even before committing and then before anybody else could face the problem. Don't you think?
Just thinking about adding a flag which is activating a paranoid check inside default build system and which lead into failing buildsin such a case. This would give plugin devs the chance to fix their code on one hand and unexperienced people which just want to test to have a build they can do their stuff with.
Yeah, so long as it doesn't make the whole system too complicated and is well documented, it has to be easily usable and maintainable :-)
Yes, didn't had something else in my mind. For autotools this could be a new target with cpp-flags as on waf it could be an option on command line. Something, and I bag you to don't take me to serious, similar to: make devbuild or ./waf build --developer
Cheers, Frank