On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:57:17 +0300, Kustaa Nyholm said: >This is no criticism but I'm curious why there seems > >to be so many of these kind small patches,example: > >"A small patch for: >strerror.c:148: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned" > >what I mean is that I would have thought every one would >run their compilers with (almost) every possible warning >turned on and that in 2013 every compiler would warn >about things like that and hence I would have expected >this kind of things being caught when the code was written...
There are a large number of compilers, OS headers, warning options, platforms, etc. It's near impossible to catch everything. That said, it would be good if libusb adopted a more stringent development process. ex: nightly buildbots, continuous buildbots, code review, unit tests, etc. There are lots of tools to do this. With ctest/cdash we could have night build results like this: <http://open.cdash.org/index.php?project=VTK> That show build errors, warnings, and test failures. And a tool like gerrit could be used to review and build patches before integrating into master: <http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/> Cheers, -- ____________________________________________________________ Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com Rogue Research www.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
