On 15 Jan 2018, at 08:11, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mott...@libero.it> wrote: > > Hi, > > I find it interesting. I have of course no idea of the quality of the output, > if we will be overthrown with false positives or such, but I think it is > worth to try.
My experience with Coverity is that it has a lot of false positives, but the UI gives a simple mechanism for flagging them and the scanner is pretty good at detecting that something is still a false positive after code around it has changed. > > Fred Kiefer wrote: >> As you know I am no fan of management tasks. If you have time for this it >> would be great if you could set it up. Otherwise I will try to do it over >> the next weekend. >> A new mailing list would be one way to go, the other possibility is to >> register the core module maintainers (your, Richard, me) for all the core >> modules there. Coverity has pretty good GitHub integration and I’ve found that the web UI is very useful, but that the emails are completely useless (they don’t include enough context and they don’t give you any of the controls that you want). I’d prefer not to be added to any mailing lists containing the results of the scans, but I’d be very interested in checking them periodically and after I commit anything. David _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
