From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D757E20954 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 23:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751014AbdLGXAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:00:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60832 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750919AbdLGXAa (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:00:30 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B11BC5ECF; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:00:30 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=icJPahl0v5b9 UHMPLamcNi8x02s=; b=mpk1oOp3784/jJZMArCd2MoK3QyIo+I7YpoKpyqNUiN3 VywBUgymgN0ztieYtUoy6mPpyhumWEDbsKgDMTbanBIiyaqhkowkygsOVZbErQR0 LQvvNoYi4n1w03C1qT7Wat6vAtfGRm8D4ZKjw+eq23/v9n2RC4EJFALB/8E+s4g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=JtJQLU 5aJUvVoC9guGctPSrVKjq/+8Y3GVJ1heL4/YK8a4/GfzcljNQOU2r1DUrhD/IjGS foDJvrC0u8e8vx0K8+HOCLOqxueM9JIAjdQNskyqwuf6zrgXl5xUKs5S5PGmK+sG 1giOtpM4dGgCcD3PrlxpN9vkRMT9KE7cAGZFI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B80C5ECE; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94161C5ECD; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: Kaartic Sivaraam , Eric Sunshine , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] builtin/branch: strip refs/heads/ using skip_prefix References: <20171129034620.4719-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> <20171201055933.19368-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:00:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: ("SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor=22's?= message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2017 05:29:15 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6B1B0634-DBA2-11E7-8BB0-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam > wrote: >> Sorry, missed a ';' in v4. >> >> The surprising thing I discovered in the TravisCI build for v4 >> was that apart from the 'Documentation' build the 'Static Analysis' >> build passed, with the following output, >> >> -- >> $ ci/run-static-analysis.sh >> GIT_VERSION =3D 2.13.1.1972.g6ced3f745 >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci >> SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/array.cocci.patch >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/object_id.cocci >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/qsort.cocci >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci >> SPATCH result: contrib/coccinelle/strbuf.cocci.patch >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/swap.cocci >> SPATCH contrib/coccinelle/xstrdup_or_null.cocci >> >> The command "ci/run-static-analysis.sh" exited with 0. > > Perhaps Coccinelle should have errored out, or perhaps its 0 exit code > means "I didn't find any code matching any of the semantic patches that > required transformation". > >> I guess static analysis tools make an assumption that the source >> code is syntactically valid for them to work correctly. So, I guess >> we should at least make sure the code 'compiles' before running >> the static analysis tool even though we don't build it completely. >> I'm not sure if it's a bad thing to run the static analysis on code >> that isn't syntactically valid, though. > > Travis CI already runs 6 build jobs compiling Git. And that is in > addition to the one that you should have run yourself before even > thinking about submitting v4 ;) That's plenty to catch errors like > these. And if any of those builds fail because Git can't be built or > because of a test failure, then Coccinelle's success doesn't matter at > all, because the commit is toast anyway. Somehow this fell underneath my radar horizon. I see v4 and v5 of 4/4 but do not seem to find 1-3/4. Is this meant to be a standalone patch, or am I expected to already have 1-3 that we already are committed to take? Thanks.