On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Constify local structures.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
Just my two cents but:
- You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
- However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes somehow.
I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, you should explain why.
submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover letter, which will not be committed anyway.
I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to explain that but it depends on the context).
I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals.
OK, thanks for the feedback.
julia