On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:16 AM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > Hi > > I just wanted to make sure we followed proper procedures and policies when > considering rule checkers. > I guess these comments are germane to the other thread, but I want to reflect here a bit.
> 1. The license must appropriate. > Can you expand what you mean by this? > 2. There should be some basic requirements that the tool is expected to meet > to be fit for purpose > > 3. The tool must support the range of development hosts used in the Community. > Only if we make it a requirement for developers to check these rules locally before submitting patches/commits. If we had a server for example that could accept submissions from developers, this would be irrelevant? > As a detail, once selected the tool needs to have an RSB recipe. > Only if you require that checkers must be built-from-source. > For style checkers, I am concerned that they are not integrated into the > normal development and build process. There is already enough "garbage > collection" to do and making a special pass. If that's the case, it will just > be a burden. > > Just some thoughts. I'm not opposed to this, I just don't want something like > Coverity where it is only run periodically and only a few people even look at > it much less fix problems. > I think that the problem of only running periodically and having few eyes/fixes are a bit orthogonal to things you pointed out earlier. I think the inclusion of rule checkers will be a good thing, but I also agree that how it gets done is important for long-term viability. > --joel > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
