Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-01 00:07:02) > > about antons comment > "Objections: (Anton) Coverity (and other static analysis tools) are > notoriously prone to false positives. I am concerned that this might lead to > a large number of patches that "fix" such false positives, but make the code > worse." > > It was me years ago who brought the number of coverity issues down to > a small number. It has exploded since. > > anton, where does this misstrust come from ? > When i did all that fixing of covertiy issues long ago i closed many > i think about 1/3 where real issues IIRC 2/3 where false positves or > "intended" i closed the false positives and marked them accordingly as false > or > intended or whatever was correct. > > Why should i suddenly do something different ? > I did it for 100% free back then > and here it wouldnt even make sense, closing false positives also > counts as resolved. Its less work even to get 70USD ;)
What's with this hurt-feelings tone? You ASKED people to comment on the proposals, so I asked a question. You can just answer it, no need to get all emotional about it. I don't stalk you or your commits, why do you expect me to know that you worked on such issues "long ago"? I don't even know one can close coverity issues manually. What I do know is that I've seen similar initiatives run into this pathology in the past, hence my question. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
