-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Merljin I did not want to criticize you I just don't agree with
"That would make the bot completely useless" I find it useful as it is
already! As mentioned it would be good to have pep8 but I would be
careful with FORCING it by blocking non-pep8-compilant patches/changes
because first of all that would just increase the workload to us.
1) all code passes pep8 validation 2) someone uploads
that adds a mistake: the merged repository does not pass
validation 3) the bot reports the patchset failed validation 4) the
change is merged -> the repository no longer passes validation!
Yes that's of course what can (and according to Murphy also will)
happen, but I would just mark susch a commit as bug or at least "to be
improved" and fix it. I mean nothing will break if the code is not
pep8. It will still work. It is just not that clean and pure anymore.
And because the repository no longer passes
validation, the bot
will also report 'failure' on any following patchset!
There it would be nice if the bot could be patched in order to become
such smart that it can mark this as follow-up to the buggy patchset
that was not pep8.
As such, the repository needs to always pass
validation. To make
sure the repository always passes validation, no changes should be
merged if they fail validation. The easiest way to prevent the
changes to be merged is to set the bot to voting.
IMHO this is what should be done for unittests strictly but for pep8
it should be tolerant. unittests say that the code does not work. pep8
just says that the code might be ugly. First is strict but second not.
Greetings and thanks a lot for your effort on this!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----