This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A few suggestions for bugzilla mail to gcc-bugs
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:56:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 10:23 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:02:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, 24 May 2003, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>A few suggestions for the mail to gcc-bugs, taking this recent
> >>>message as an example:
> >>>
> >>>>PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT*
> >>>>gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> >>>
> >>>Can't this be automated?
> >>Actually, it can't, AFAIK.
> >
> >Well, there's already a Reply-To: header set...
> >>
> Yes, but i can't automate people doing the right thing.
> I can, however, remove the banner, and already planned on it.
>
> >>>
> >>>>------- Additional Comments From edmar@motorola.com 2003-05-22
> >>>>17:30 -------
> >>>>Created an attachment (id=4054)
> >>>> -->
> >>>>(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4054&action=view)
> >>>>Preprocessed file that caused the ICE
> >>>
> >>>Although I really like not getting any useless 500kB+ emails
> >>>through gcc-bugs anymore, if an attachment is short, can it
> >>>be sent in the actual email please?
> >>
> >>Define short.
> >
> >Let's just pick a reasonable limit - how about 20K?
>
> Actually, let's not do it.
> It's not easy to do, it's cpu consuming (attachments are stored
> compressed in the db, so i'd have to uncompress the attachments every
> time we go to send out mail, just to see if they are the right size)
> first, and second, it's a security risk (auto-distribute hacks by
> posting them as an attachment).
Can you query the compressed size more quickly? We don't need to be
precise here...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer