On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 06:38:30 +0100, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If said script was providing a correct semantic patch instead of being > > an incentive for people to churn untested patches that span the whole > > tree, that'd be a different story. But that's not what this is about. > > What is the actual incorrectness with the script? The first thing is that it spits out a "WARNING", which is almost universally interpreted as something that needs addressing. In this case, it really doesn't. The suggested helper is only icing sugar, and the original code is perfectly fine. The second thing is that it results in people posting patches they don't even compile, let alone test. There would be a good chance for these patches to be correct if the script was directly generating them, but that's unfortunately not the case. > An option could be to adjust the rule such that it can be run with an > extra command line option, like -D developer but is not run by default by > make coccicheck. Maybe. I'm not sure this will deter people from running these scripts and sending broken patches anyway. No matter how many safeguards you put, people will still post broken patches just because they can. M. -- Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
