Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] developer: support pedantic

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 1, 2021, 10:10 UTC
Message-ID: <YS9RieTeJSFmd6M7@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210901091941.34886-1-carenas@gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:19:37AM -0700, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:

> first patch was suggested[1] by Peff, so hopefully my commit message
> and his assumed SoB are still worth not mixing it with patch 2 (which
> has a slight different but related focus and touches the same files)
> but since it is no longer a single patch, lets go wild.

My SoB is fine there (though really Ævar did the actual thinking; I just deleted a lot of lines in vim :) ).

Patch 2 looks good to me, though I kind of wonder if it is even worth having an option to turn it off.

> patches 3 and 4 are optional and mostly for RFC, so that a solution
> to any possible issue that the retiring of USE_PARENS_AROUND_GETTEXT_N
> are addressed.

IMHO the issue it is trying to find is not worth the inevitable problems that hacky perl parsing of C will cause (both false positives and negatives). Not a statement on your perl code, but just based on previous experience.

So I'd probably take the first two patches, and leave the others.

-Peff