Addition of Rule Checkers
gedare at rtems.org
Mon Jul 29 22:23:04 UTC 2019
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:16 AM Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems.org> wrote:
> I just wanted to make sure we followed proper procedures and policies when considering rule checkers.
I guess these comments are germane to the other thread, but I want to
reflect here a bit.
> 1. The license must appropriate.
Can you expand what you mean by this?
> 2. There should be some basic requirements that the tool is expected to meet to be fit for purpose
> 3. The tool must support the range of development hosts used in the Community.
Only if we make it a requirement for developers to check these rules
locally before submitting patches/commits. If we had a server for
example that could accept submissions from developers, this would be
> As a detail, once selected the tool needs to have an RSB recipe.
Only if you require that checkers must be built-from-source.
> For style checkers, I am concerned that they are not integrated into the normal development and build process. There is already enough "garbage collection" to do and making a special pass. If that's the case, it will just be a burden.
> Just some thoughts. I'm not opposed to this, I just don't want something like Coverity where it is only run periodically and only a few people even look at it much less fix problems.
I think that the problem of only running periodically and having few
eyes/fixes are a bit orthogonal to things you pointed out earlier. I
think the inclusion of rule checkers will be a good thing, but I also
agree that how it gets done is important for long-term viability.
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
More information about the devel