I don't think we want discussion of bugs in this
list. A bug which is
discussed is lost until it's filed to Bugzilla. And
besides, we are not
asking users to post their bugs in gcc-bugs.
gcc-bugs is just a way to track
what's going on, people should file bugs to
Bugzilla, and then discuss them
on the audit trail of the bug itself.
That's reasonable. I guess sometimes I see people send
messages saying "xyz doesn't work here" I think "abc"
is to blame, and someone will respond in kind, but
that's pretty rare, and usually it's the developers
anyway, so that works I guess...
Yes, but we still don't want the list to be flooded.
If you feel that there
are a certain kind of "bug updates" that shouldn't
need to be posted on
gcc-bugs, just raise the issue, we can fully
configure which kind of mails
gcc-bugs gets.
I think most of the stuff there is probably okay. It
also seems to be settling down now, as the number of
unconfirmed bugs drops...
the bug's audit trail,
you could explain the author to post it to
gcc-patches. Also, we could add a
keyword "patch-pending" for bugs whose patch was not
reviewed yet (but I
kind of fear that reviewers are not going to query
for it often...)
Yes, I see what you mean. I'll certainly encourage bug
submitters to send their patches to gcc-patches. I
almost wish there was a Status category for bugs with
submitted patches, but I suppose that'll complicate
things a bit unnecessarily.