This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:37:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
References: <2818635A-EF7E-11D7-9657-000A95AF1FAE@dberlin.org> <79FFEC16-EF7E-11D7-9657-000A95AF1FAE@dberlin.org> <20030925211608.GA20240@alinoe.com>

On Sep 25, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:

It could happen that someone starts a mail with an RFC or
bug report - and then later someone replies to that thread
with a PATCH proposal - shouldn't that be prosessed as a
patch then?

The patch will.


Perhaps it is better to scan the body for attachments, and
detect the existance of a patch based on typical 'diff'-like
output.

This is not easy, and is somewhat more prone to false positives.

Also, if I understand you right - this describes how mails
to gcc-patches@ will be filtered/detected and processed/included
on GNATs.  But the other way around is also needed imho:
When someone creates an attachment on GNAT for an existing
PR he can mark that attachment as a patch - if he does that,
then I think a mail should go out to patches@, including
the patch (or when the patch is very large - with just a
link to it).

This is being worked on, if it can be done reasonably.

Just ideas,

--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

References:
- Starting to track patches through bugzilla
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
  - From: Carlo Wood

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]