This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: bug fixes prompted by recent Coverity scan
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:18:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: bug fixes prompted by recent Coverity scan
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1440571321-20287-1-git-send-email-eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu> <55DD6115 dot 2040000 at redhat dot com> <55E0830A dot 8050907 at cs dot ucla dot edu>
On 08/28/2015 05:49 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Second, there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in getting obvious bugs
> like these fixed. The current distracting thread about ChangeLog style
> is a symptom of the problem.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience contributing.
The ChangeLog discussion was not entirely pointless. I would not have
started it if the bug reference was not missing. The posix_fallocate
bug would not have needed a bug report.
I'm not yet sure about the vfprintf bug.
> I can't help contrasting the somewhat offputting responses to my four
> glibc Coverity scan patches with the quite-friendly response I got from
> the gettext project when I filed the gettext-related patch upstream.
> Here's the entire interaction:
> I ran "git send-email --email@example.com".
> Within a few hours, Daiki Ueno replied "Thanks, applied."
How can we import such patches in a way that the automated ChangeLog
merging kicks in?
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security