[cheesecake-users] output question

[will guaraldi]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Micha? Kwiatkowski wrote:
>
> It's really a minor issue, so I guess I will just follow your 
> suggestions. Our misunderstanding came probably from my assumption that 
> this extra information will represent hints for package maintainer what 
> his package is missing and what can be done to make the score higher. 
> Having this output at the very end would be helpful because number of 
> things to improve could be grasped on first glance. With output 
> scattered along the lines of scores it would be obviously harder. But if 
> this extra output represents overall information on how the score is 
> computed, it probably won't be bad for it to appear along the score 
> lines.

I'm not sure Cheesecake should be giving advice.  Not all projects need 
the same things or have the same requirements, so giving advice seems like 
a bad idea to me.

If Cheesecake were configurable like pylint where a user could disable all 
the things that aren't appropriate for a specific project, that would 
work.  Then Cheesecake would be helping to increase the quality that's 
been specified for the project rather than giving advice on good practices 
while ignorant of what the specific project really wants/needs.


> So, to sum up and close this topic: all info should be printed right 
> after computed score with special prefix representing its source, yes?

For the purposes of being explicit, I think only explanation needs to be 
printed near the computed score (my patch had it before, but after is 
fine).

If Cheesecake is going to give advice, then I agree with you in that it 
should go after Cheesecake's report of the package.  Though I say that 
with the caveats I mentioned above.

/will