On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 23:55 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
On 10/5/06, Paul Vriens Paul.Vriens@xs4all.nl wrote:
the email sent by Coverity also asks for a 'main contact'. Do we have such a person already?
Not that I know. Are you volunteering?
If nobody steps up, sure.
Can we give them a date when they could recreate the database?
Maybe it's good to have a clean start on this. I've found several 'annotations' that just say 'BUG' back in April and nothing else. We should come up with some sort of standard for this, or am I talking rubbish now?
I'm ashamed to say I haven't looked. If you have, and the annotations don't look worth keeping, then let's just start over. So how about this: let's tell them tomorrow morning that it's ok to wipe the database on Tuesday. That should give anyone interested time to look at the annotations and make sure they agree.
- Dan
That's fine with me. I haven't looked through all annotations, so there could be something worthwhile to keep.
On the other hand, several annotations are from April (6 months development since) and several bugs have been fixed already (but of course not seen).
What about the fact, that we need some rules/standards for ourselves to deal with these Coverity reports?
For example, if something is marked as a BUG then I'd expect the person that marked it, to follow up (either by a patch, by chasing somebody to look into this, or to create a bugzilla entry). He/she has spent already some time looking into this so why waste that time.
As soon as the number of defects drops down to a manageable number, the chasing could even be done by the 'main contact' :-).
Cheers,
Paul.