From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32049 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2007 15:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 31974 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2007 15:39:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (HELO a.mail.sonic.net) (64.142.16.245) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:38:56 +0000 Received: from snyder (209-204-172-156.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [209.204.172.156]) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with SMTP id l7IFcfU5006991; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:38:42 -0700 Message-ID: <000501c7e1ad$9f415800$677ba8c0@sonic.net> Reply-To: "Michael Snyder" From: "Michael Snyder" To: "Nick Roberts" Cc: References: <10983.12.7.175.2.1187377963.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net><18118.17885.89039.298330@kahikatea.snap.net.nz><000701c7e155$9bcfb8e0$677ba8c0@sonic.net> <18118.45892.919518.866568@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Subject: Re: NEWS for 6.7: mention coverity bug fixes Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:39:00 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Roberts" To: "Michael Snyder" Cc: 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?