On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:00:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > That's a different model from the one discussed, e.g. embedding a > > non-FLOSS checker into the buildsystem. > > I don't think anyone yet proposed to embed Coverity directly *into* the > buildsys. Maybe not proposed, but assumed. > The question was more whether we'd be interested to see Coverity > scans for all FE packages. The *how* we generate the reports comes > later I think... It's not that easy, you need to follow where the consequences will lead you as the "how" may turn out to be not acceptable to you or not worth while. Making isolated local decisions leads to wrong results. > > I agree, this is an acceptable model of "cooperation", which isn't an > > explicit cooperation at all, just as you outline. But from the > > discussion I'm not sure whether this is the targeted model, most > > visions of using this technology are far more intrusive than simply > > having an external entity file some bugs. > > Let's get to first things first: do we like to get bug reports > uncovered through Coverity ? Do you want your neighbor's Porsche? We'll discuss how you'll get it later on. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpg8vKUgN1Ok.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
