Re: Extending whitespace checks

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 1, 2024, 22:31 UTC
Message-ID: <20241201223146.GI145938@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7c8os07x.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 08:53:06AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > But it seems like a very deep rabbit hole to start adding in
> > shared-library line validators, because I think it ends in "now
> > compile this before I agree to apply the patch".
> 
> I am not sure I understand your conclusion.  Who is telling that to
> whom?  Somebody sends a patch that creates a file that requires a
> special validator and the maintainer gives the validator and tells
> the contributor to go use it to make sure their addition passses
> before resubmitting?
> 
> I was hoping that the ability to add extra validators is more of an
> enabler (than requirement and hindrance) for those who choose to be
> extra careful.  It is similar to CFLAGS in our Makefile that allows
> you to use options to enable more strict compiler warnings than what
> other developers usually use, to notice certain class of problems
> others may miss.

Yes, we who introduce the mechanism to create plug-ins do not have to worry about writing those plug-ins ourselves. But we do have to maintain the plug-in interface, and respond to complaints when it is not rich enough to do what people want to do. So I was merely pessimistically foreseeing where this may end up. ;)

Of course...

> Shared-libraries and plug-ins remain to be solution in search of
> problem at least for this project.  I do not really need CSV comma
> counter, but I thought it may give a good excuse for those who want
> to play with Rust and other stuff ;-)

...if playing with the plug-in interface is the point, none of that may matter. :)

-Peff