From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8942E6101 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2023 05:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9137F123 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2023 22:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 9930 invoked by uid 109); 5 Nov 2023 05:34:50 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Nov 2023 05:34:50 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 11318 invoked by uid 111); 5 Nov 2023 05:34:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 05 Nov 2023 01:34:53 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 01:34:48 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Eric Sunshine Cc: rsbecker@nexbridge.com, Git List Subject: Re: Request for Help - Too many perl arguments as of 2.43.0-rc0 Message-ID: <20231105051615.GA1515359@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <00a101da0e88$778cd3b0$66a67b10$@nexbridge.com> <00c301da0e9d$0d2cb8e0$27862aa0$@nexbridge.com> <00c401da0ea1$b61899c0$2249cd40$@nexbridge.com> <20231104134915.GA1492953@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 08:11:01PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > Hmm. With compilation, we split the audience of "developers" vs "people > > who just want to build the program", and we crank up the number and > > severity of warning checks for the former. We could do the same here for > > tests. I.e., turn off test linting by default and re-enable it for > > DEVELOPER=1. > > My knee-jerk reaction is that this would move us in the wrong > direction since it is probable that most drive-by contributors won't > have DEVELOPER=1 set, yet they are the ones who are likely to benefit > most from test script linting (which is not to say that it doesn't > help seasoned contributors, as well). Yeah, that's a good point. If the linting is not causing frequent headaches (and I don't think it is), then we are better to leave it on by default. -Peff