On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Georg Baum <[email protected]> wrote: > Liviu Andronic wrote: > >> I propose that whenever someone finds some item particularly yummy, >> and they start looking more closely into the issue, that they >> nominally assign themselves to that item so that others would know >> that someone is already working on it. (OK, that was unnecessarily >> verbose, even if surprisingly precise, but I hope it's excusable given >> that it's quite late here...) > > I had a look, and most reports make sense. Also the wording is excellent. > There are however also some in qt headers, and several cases of dead code > which is #ifdefd out on purpose. > Sounds great, Georg.
As a first step I think we can start triaging those issues that are intentional (e.g. #ifdefd out on purpose). We would simply need to set Classification as "Intentional" and Action as "Ignore". This way we can get the easy stuff out of the way. (And we can always come back to these reports later on if need be.) > My main problem was that the intersting issues were in code I do not > understand enough, so I did not dare to touch it;-( > Yes, from my experience with other projects, fixing such reports can have unexpected consequences. So better not touch if issue is not well understood. I guess best course of action would be to try to deal with the easy reports first (and probably always include "fix Coverity issue" in the GIT commit so that we can easily find and revert such fixes if something went wrong). And later on try to tackle the more obscure reports, and discuss them one by one on the ML. Regards, Liviu > > Georg > -- Do you think you know what math is? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/ian-stewart-2013-08-02 Or what it means to be intelligent? http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/john-duncan-2013-08-30 Think again: http://www.ideasroadshow.com/library
