On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:56:27PM -0500, 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 not choice but to keep > things fixed. ;-) > Ah, Prasanna has a patch to do that for clang. I can adopt that for this and have both of them turned on. That might be a good New Year's welcome back :) -- nigelb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
