This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: NEWS for 6.7: mention coverity bug fixes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Roberts" <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@sonic.net>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: NEWS for 6.7: mention coverity bug fixes
> > > I can imagine that Coverity would like recognition when their software
is
> > > successfully used to find bugs in free software projects, but I don't
> > > think that NEWS is the right place to do it. This file details what
> > > changes have been made to GDB, not how they were made or how many
were
> > > made. You already mention Coverity in the ChangeLogs, which seems
the
> > > right thing to do. _They_ can then use this as evidence to any
claims
> > > that they might wish to make about their software.
> >
> > Actually I stopped mentioning them in the changelogs, when
> > one of the Binutils maintainers said that they thought it was
> > inappropriate.
>
> I think I can see this in the archives where he suggests writing what he
calls
> a NEWS entry but then refers to http://gcc.gnu.org/news.html, for which
there
> appears to be no GDB equivalent. I thought the NEWS _file_ was aimed at
the
> users of GDB. To that extent the bug fixes made through Coverity are only
> relevant here if they provide a noticeable difference, e.g., users were
> complaining about crashes and leakages which have been fixed.
>
> I guess if Coverity is proprietary software then the Free Software line
may be
> that it gets no mention. However, the ChangeLog seems appropriate to me,
just
> as it is the place where the author gets recognition for his/her
contribution.
That was indeed my first thought.
Would you suggest, then, that I go back and annotate the 60 or so
change log entries I've made that refer to fixing Coverity issues?