Coverity, ClearMake, Erlang VM

Richard O'Keefe ok@REDACTED
Sun Feb 21 23:04:33 CET 2010

On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Michael Turner wrote:

> On 2/18/2010, "Richard O'Keefe" <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Björn Gustavsson wrote:
>>> That's it because we have always used Clearcase and Clearmake,
>>> that handle most dependencies automatically. We will starting
>>> working on updating the Makefiles to have the necessary
>>> dependencies. (Patches accepted.)
>> That reminds me of the article from Coverity in CACM.
> With the important difference that the CACM article mentioned people  
> who
> thought that ClearCase Make was how all makes work; obviously,
> Erlang/OTP people know better.

If anyone thought I was in any way slighting or criticising the
Erlang/OTP team there, please accept my apologies.  All I actually
meant was "at this moment, ANY mention of Clearmake, no matter what,
reminds me of the Coverity article, just due to the co-occurrence
of the name.  Having been reminded of Coverity, and the fact that
the US government supported the processing of millions of lines of
open source code by Coverity, ..."

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list