On Thursday 06 April 2006 14:07, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:36, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> > > On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:08, Jaison Lee wrote:
> > > > On 4/5/06, Ben Chelf wrote:
> > > > > Right now, we're guarding access to the actual defects that we
> > > > > report If this interests
> > > > > you, please feel free to register on our site or email me directly.
> > > >
> > > > Registration is fine. But asking for the registrant's phone number is
> > > > a little much. :/
> > >
> > > Guys, before you blow this up too much, Aaron, Dirk and myself are on
> > > "the inside" already with these checks and are helping Coverity's
> > > technical side resolve the build problems they had. The results are
> > > quite interesting (as in, *hundreds* of little bugs along the lines of
> > > what Christoph announced yesterday on -core-devel), but need filtering
> > > to find the "real" problems -- there are false positives.

> >
> > Are Coverity scanning 3.5 or trunk? And do they do KOffice, too?

>
> Trunk, and no, because they're still working out libs and base (at least,
> earlier this week they were). The minute kde-svnbuild builds all of trunk
> and koffice trunk too, then koffice can be in there as well.


I think as much code as possible should be tested, although cmake ports are
required first of course. kdegames, kdepim, etc.

I also think one of the experimental modules such as kdenonbeta or playground
should be tested. It would be a great quality indicaticator to check before
including a piece of code in the crucial modules. Good idea? If so, which
one?

Of course, resources can be a limiting factor.


Cheers,

Frans

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<