<div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto">On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 18:31, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <<a href="mailto:kkeithle@redhat.com">kkeithle@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 11/02/2017 10:19 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:<br>
> While I appreciate the folks to contribute lot of coverity fixes over<br>
> last few days, I have an observation for some of the patches the<br>
> coverity issue id(s) are *not* mentioned which gets maintainers in a<br>
> difficult situation to understand the exact complaint coming out of the<br>
> coverity. From my past experience in fixing coverity defects, sometimes<br>
> the fixes might look simple but they are not.<br>
><br>
> May I request all the developers to include the defect id in the commit<br>
> message for all the coverity fixes?<br>
><br>
<br>
How does that work? AFAIK the defect IDs are constantly changing as some<br>
get fixed and new ones get added.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We’d need atleast (a) the defect id with pointer to the coverity link which most of the devs are now following I guess but with a caveat that link goes stale in 7 days and the review needs to be done by that time or (b) the commit message should exactly have the coverity description which is more neat.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">( I was not knowing the fact the defect id are not constant and later on got to know this from Nigel today)</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
(And I know everyone looks at the coverity report after their new code<br>
is committed to see if they might have added a new issue.)<br>
<br>
Today's defect ID 435 might be 436 or 421 tomorrow.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Kaleb<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">- Atin (atinm)</div>