Il 21/10/2016 18:16, Mutz, Marc ha scritto:
>
> Just one request: can anyone uploading a build of either branch please
> set the description to the SHA-1 the build is based on? Apparently,
> Coverity does not relate to VCS at all.
I will switch to qt5.git soon. So far I've been just using the t
Il 13/10/2016 15:11, Giuseppe D'Angelo ha scritto:
> "qt-project-lts" is going to be 5.6. The new branch should be ready soon
> (was told yesterday afternoon, actually), I'll send an email when this
> is done.
Aaand we're live. I've just successfully uploaded a build:
https://scan.coverity.com/
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:43:13PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 13/10/16 14:35, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Will the -lts version start out with its own CIDs or will identical issues
> > have the same CIDs in both projects? If they're different, we'll have a
> > mess.
>
> The idea was to share t
On 13/10/16 14:35, Marc Mutz wrote:
Will the -lts version start out with its own CIDs or will identical issues
have the same CIDs in both projects? If they're different, we'll have a mess.
The idea was to share the database of CIDs so to keep them in sync.
That's why it's taking so long to set
On Thursday 13 October 2016 15:11:18 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Heads up:
>
> On 03/10/16 22:46, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > I'm going with "lts" and "dev" anyhow, thanks!
>
> To avoid losing history, we're sticking with the current "qt-project" to
> represent "dev", as apparently it's not possi
Heads up:
On 03/10/16 22:46, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
I'm going with "lts" and "dev" anyhow, thanks!
To avoid losing history, we're sticking with the current "qt-project" to
represent "dev", as apparently it's not possible to rename projects.
"qt-project-lts" is going to be 5.6. The new bran
Il 03/10/2016 23:28, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> Maybe "lts" is better because we can then reuse the project for the next LTS,
> whenever that happens.
Given the number of branches that other projects have, I don't think
it's going to be a problem in the future to create or destroy new branches
> On 3 oct. 2016, at 23:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2016 22:42:23 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> I'd say we should at least get 5.6 and dev covered (we can then bikeshed
>> on the naming -- "stable" and "dev"?). What do you think?
>
> Please do. That's a g
On segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2016 23:09:39 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I think the names should be "5.6" or "lts", the other one stays named as it
> is.
Maybe "lts" is better because we can then reuse the project for the next LTS,
whenever that happens.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.maciei
On segunda-feira, 3 de outubro de 2016 22:42:23 CEST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> I'd say we should at least get 5.6 and dev covered (we can then bikeshed
> on the naming -- "stable" and "dev"?). What do you think?
Please do. That's a good idea, even if we don't have a lot of people looking
at thos
Howdy,
I've just contacted Coverity Scan asking how to configure it for
supporting multiple branches.
The easiest solution seems to be getting N projects, one per branch;
other projects are doing the same, for instance
https://scan.coverity.com/projects?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=postgresql
https://s
11 matches
Mail list logo
