Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] builtin/branch: strip refs/heads/ using skip_prefix

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam
> <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry, missed a ';' in v4.
>>
>> The surprising thing I discovered in the TravisCI build for v4
>> was that apart from the 'Documentation' build the 'Static Analysis'
>> build passed, with the following output,
>>
>> -- <snip>
>> $ ci/run-static-analysis.sh
>> GIT_VERSION = 2.13.1.1972.g6ced3f745
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci
>>      SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci.patch
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/qsort.cocci
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci
>>      SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci.patch
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci
>>      SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/xstrdup_or_null.cocci
>>
>> The command "ci/run-static-analysis.sh" exited with 0.
>
> Perhaps Coccinelle should have errored out, or perhaps its 0 exit code
> means "I didn't find any code matching any of the semantic patches that
> required transformation".
>
>> I guess static analysis tools make an assumption that the source
>> code is syntactically valid for them to work correctly. So, I guess
>> we should at least make sure the code 'compiles' before running
>> the static analysis tool even though we don't build it completely.
>> I'm not sure if it's a bad thing to run the static analysis on code
>> that isn't syntactically valid, though.
>
> Travis CI already runs 6 build jobs compiling Git.  And that is in
> addition to the one that you should have run yourself before even
> thinking about submitting v4 ;)  That's plenty to catch errors like
> these.  And if any of those builds fail because Git can't be built or
> because of a test failure, then Coccinelle's success doesn't matter at
> all, because the commit is toast anyway.

Somehow this fell underneath my radar horizon.  I see v4 and v5 of
4/4 but do not seem to find 1-3/4.  Is this meant to be a standalone
patch, or am I expected to already have 1-3 that we already are
committed to take?

Thanks.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux