Re: [PATCH 3/6] coverity: allow overriding the Coverity project

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 25, 2023, 12:11 UTC
Message-ID: <20230925121157.GB1623701@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <a839daf1-9e32-96f8-4eab-7c845e128488@gmx.de>

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 01:52:47PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Hi Peff,
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2023, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:42:00AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >
> > > +# By default, the builds are submitted to the Coverity project `git`. To override this,
> > > +# set the repository variable `COVERITY_PROJECT`.
> >
> > This may not matter all that much, because I don't expect most people to
> > set this up for their forks
> 
> Except, of course, Git for Windows. And that has been the entire
> motivation for me to work on this here patch series in the first place, so
> it would be rather pointless if I could not override this in the
> git-for-windows/git fork.

I didn't at all mean that it should not be possible to override it. It was obvious to me you would want to do so for git-for-windows. I meant that the default should be $user/$fork from the Actions environment, rather than just "git". That would be a more appropriate default for people who wanted to run this out of their forks (but again, the part you quoted above is basically "I'm not sure anybody even wants to do that").

Show 14 quoted lines

> Of course, I could address this differently. I could add a commit on top
> and rebase that all the time. I'd just as well avoid that though. There is
> already too much stuff in the Git for Windows fork that I have to rebase
> so often.
> 
> Based on your response, I was on my way to enhance the commit message
> accordingly, but then I saw this already being there:
> 
> 	The Git for Windows project would like to use this workflow, too,
> 	though, and needs the builds to be submitted to the
> 	`git-for-windows` Coverity project.
> 
> Would you have any suggestion how that could make the motivation and
> intention of this patch clearer?

I understood your intention. I think you misunderstood mine. :) The commit message is fine as-is, I think.

-Peff