On 12/19/2016 12:56 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > On 12/19/2016 12:49 PM, Nigel Babu wrote: >> Thank you Kaleb. Shall we start somwhere in terms of automation? >> >> The cppcheck results look the shortest[1]. If we can commit to fixing all of >> them in the next 1 month, I can kick off a non-voting smoke job. We'll make it >> vote after 1 month. I guess the cli and experimental xlator (and a few more >> xlators, please check log) owners need to confirm that this is something we can >> target to fix. And commit to keeping fixed. > > Hi, > > It would be great to fix those, but—— > > IIRC we discussed a two compile before-and-after test, i.e. compile the > tree before and after applying the patch. If the second compile has more > (or different) warnings than the first, then the test scores a fail. > > If we do that we don't have to wait (as long) to make it a voting test. > > Once we have a voting test, then maintainers have no choice but to keep > things fixed. ;-) And we can work on fixing the existing warnings in parallel. -- Kaleb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
