This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] autopinger
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>
- To: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 30 Sep 2004 22:53:48 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] autopinger
- References: <012f01c4a690$0fee6680$dc4e2a97@bagio><email@example.com><071301c4a753$8606e720$dc4e2a97@bagio>
"Giovanni Bajo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > For each PR, if the PR is assigned to somebody, I recommend that you
> > mention that person in the list. Perhaps the patch pinger should CC
> > those people; perhaps not.
> The pinger attempts to find out the "author" of the patch. The first choice is
> the author of the mail to gcc-patches; the second choice is the assigned field
> in Bugzilla. As a matter of fact, right now I only post patches which have an
> associated mail to gcc-patches, so the second choice is never taken. It would
> become useful when/if I am asked to make it ping also patches attacched to
> Bugzilla, which some people don't like because it violates our rules that each
> patch should be posted to gcc-patches.
> This said, do you believe that explicitally.listing the assignee of the bug
> together with the "author" of the patch (mail sender) is still useful? What
> would the rationale be?
I do think so, because the person to whom the PR is assigned, if
anyone, is some gcc maintainer who has some responsibility for
resolving the problem. If that person is not the same as the author
of the patch, then he or she should be looking at the patch to accept
or reject it, or should reassign the bug to some other gcc maintainer.
> Sure, I will imlement these. I'm assuming that for "priority" you actually mean
> "severity", since we are not using the priority field at this point.