Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures

Julia Lawall
2016-09-12T13:23:56Z

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:
> > >
> > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> > > 2. 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