Don't mark SVG files as source - #702
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@redhat.com>
|
Thanks! The only sane way I know of to decide what a given xml file really is "in the wild" is to parse it and then assert some things based on its structure and possible schema (which is what used to/is done be done in Eclipse to recognize/describe what an XML file really is for instance here (https://github.com/eclipse/eclipse.platform/blob/3dce93196b299c5d1852d9a8fbe308b6fc42b32f/ant/org.eclipse.ant.core/src/org/eclipse/ant/internal/core/contentDescriber/AntBuildfileContentDescriber.java) ).. Now on the other hand large XML data files are legions and a curse. And tagging them as sources upfront is mostly counter productive. Also I would likely consider a pom.xml not as source code, but instead as a package manifest and build script of sorts, the same way an RPM spec file or Debian control files would be manifests. So with all this said, I have no issue with your proposed change... but in the end this would need to be refined with the upcoming #426 for a higher level file classification (and then I would also likely include Github linguist or its Python port(https://github.com/douban/linguist/network) ) |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #702 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 77.87% 77.41% -0.46%
===========================================
Files 86 86
Lines 10796 10796
===========================================
- Hits 8407 8358 -49
- Misses 2389 2438 +49
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Mreging... Thanks again! |
|
Thank you for the description and the merge. |
SVG file is XML and the only (I guess) XML that we want to mark as source is maven's pom.xml