On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 03:29:42PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> These are the Coverity static analysis warning/error message
> classifications. Tagging them should be useful for several reasons:
>
> 1. We can classify the types of issues being fixed
> 2. We can see how many issues are being found/fixed with the use of
> static analysis tools like Coverity
Who's "We"?
> 3. It provides some context on how these bugs were being found.
I figured as much but I have more questions:
* you say "tools like Coverity" but the name Coverity is in the tag.
So another tool would want to add its own tag. Which begs the second
question:
* has it ever been discussed and/or agreed upon all those "tools" tags?
Because we remove internal tags which have no bearing on the upstream
kernel. When I see that tag, how can I find out what it means? Can I run
coverity myself?
Lemme dig another one:
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch")
Where do I look up that ID?
And so on...
Bottom line of what I'm trying to say is, those tags better be useful to
the general kernel audience - that means, they should be documented so
that people can look them up - or better not be in commit messages at
all.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
