Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Sep 27, 2003, at 4:13 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Sorry, but RFA has a very high false positive rate.
>
> I see the opposite.
>
> > Why, just today, there were three [RFA]'s with no patches in them.
>
> No, there's been no original [RFA] or [RFA:] messages today to
> gcc-patches.  Going by the archive, that is.  I don't know where
> you look; please clarify.

All my gcc mail goes to one mailbox, so it's quite possible it was to 
gcc@
> There's been one message marked RFA: that *was* a patch.  There
> was another, in a thread marked "Re: [RFA/RFT] libffi reorg
> (take 3)" (and similar) in response to a patch sent earlier.
>
> > There have been *0* messages with [PATCH] in them with no patches in
> > them.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?  That people like marking their
> patches really loud?
That regardless of whether you think RFA is the standard, it appears 
people think PATCH is.

> Oh well, if you just don't like it, then ignore RFA.  If you
> think I'm the only one using it as "request for approval", you
> won't lose much.
>
> Anyway, why not have bugzilla look at *all messages* to
> gcc-patches that don't reference another instead of telling
> people how to mark their patches to please bugzilla?

Because i'm starting simple?
Right now I'm not going to try to match all text in the message and all 
the text in the <possibly compressed> attachments against a regular 
expression to detect diffs.
Maybe later.

> brgds, H-P