On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

quoted

Constify local structures.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

Just my two cents but:

1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
   messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
   that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
   somehow.

I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.

All of the patches are compile tested.  And the individual patches are

Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
you should explain why.

quoted

submitted to the relevant maintainers.  The individual commit messages
give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the
structure was constifiable.  It seemed redundant to put that in the cover
letter, which will not be committed anyway.

I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process
*that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to
explain that but it depends on the context).

I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this
particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can
be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient.
Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals.

OK, thanks for the feedback.

julia