This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, Andrew Pinski <apinski at apple dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:32:51 +0000
- Subject: Re: Future of gccbug
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> | > I understood at some point that all bugzilla traffic go into a
> | > separate list and only bugs submitted to gcc-bugs either via gccbug or
> | > direct mails would need "manual" entry in bugzilla. How is that
> | > copying all bug messages to two lists?
> |
> | I thought RIchard said
> |
> | 1. New bugzilla reports go to gcc-prs and gcc-bugs
>
> My understandinig was that gcc-bugs is not included. That matches any
> previous suggestion of Joe.
>
Bugzilla should only send mails to gcc-bugs if it has attached "New" to
the subject line. All other mails (and new bugs as well) should be sent
to gcc-prs.
> | 2. Followups by web go to gcc-bugs
>
> I'm not sure he intended this. Richard?
We can't (easily) prevent people following up to gcc-bugs, but we should
certainly discourage it (if the thread is one that bugzilla is tracking).
Bugzilla should only send to gcc-bugs as specified above.
>
> | That requires bugzilla knowing about two lists, one of which wants
> | some mail excluded.
> |
> | This is a bit tricky.
> |
> | It's actually probably easier to have the mailing list software (or
> | something) copy all new bug-mail (i can add a header to seperate it
> | from the followups) to gcc-prs, than it is to try to get bugzilla to
> | deal with it.
> | >
R.