This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, Andrew Pinski <apinski at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:44:33 +0000
- Subject: Re: Future of gccbug
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> On Nov 9, 2003, at 1:17 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com> writes:
> > | > If someone sets up a list, i can make it email only new reports to
> > that
> > | > list without any trouble.
> > | >
> > |
> > | Well, we still have gcc-prs. My suggestion would be to send only new
> > | messages to gcc-bugs, and all the bug-tracking dross to gcc-prs.
> > Wholeheartly seconded.
> Then you want followups to gcc-bugs to still go into the database?
> Or only followups on gcc-prs?
Think of it this way:
Bugzilla's primary list should be switched to gcc-prs. This list should
behave exactly the same way that gcc-bugs does now.
When Bugzilla receives a new report then, for the new report only, it
should also send the message to gcc-bugs. Depending on how you want to
set up scanning, the reply-to should either be gcc-prs or the bugzilla