> 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 guss 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. Before we get to automation, shouldn't we have a discussion about what "defects" we should filter out? For example, we already have a problem with compilers spitting out warnings about unused variables in generated code, and then promoting those warnings to errors. Fixing those is more trouble than it's worth. Static analyzers are going to produce even more reports of Things That Don't Really Matter, along with a few about Actual Serious Problems. It's a characteristic of the genre. If we don't make any explicit decisions about priorities, it will actually take us longer to fix all of the null-pointer errors and array overflows and memory leaks as people wade through a sea of lesser defects. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
