Martin v. Löwis added the comment: Julien: I propose to resolve this issue in the same way as we have done previously with analysis tools (with some unfortunate exceptions).
Somebody motivated enough (hopefully you) agrees to initially study the tool output, and ideally also then agrees to run the tool on a regular basis (but this is really not mandatory - the help with the initial run is already appreciated). You would then filter out the reports, and see which of them are useful. If you can, have the tool silence the bogus reports (e.g. with a configuration file). For the issues that you consider valid, please file individual bug reports (possibly combining related reports, e.g. by module or by error kind, but only if they can all be reasonably fixed in a single commit). The key concern of the developers here is probably this: a) there is no doubt that getting issues detected and fixed would be a helpful contribution, but b) the amount of false positives makes it unattractive to actually run the tool yourself. If you do not want to volunteer, this is fine as well. Just don't feel sad if the issue gets closed with no action. ---------- nosy: +loewis _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18521> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
