Re: [PATCH 0/5] chainlint: improve robustness against "unusual" shell coding

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

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I had two minor comments on the first patch. I'll admit my eyes glazed
> over looking at the rest of them, and to make any kind of intelligent
> review I'd need to spend an hour understanding how the sed script works.
> Which frankly, I'm not sure is worth it.

Didn't I make this prediction when we started the "text inspection"
approach that it quickly go downhill resulting in unmaintainable
mess rather quickly ;-)?

> Given the empirical results
> (both on the real code base and the new tests you add) and the low-risk
> nature (it's linting our tests, after all, not code users run), I'd be
> inclined to say it's not making anything worse, and probably making
> things better. We can find out about any further short-comings in the
> wild.

Amen to that.



[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