Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

> I haven't sent patches in a while. :-)
> ...still it's a whopping 18 times that people used this
> convention!  Anyway, I'm not going to change the nice convention
> that I've been using since I don't know when.

Okay.

> > I'd rather we standardize on [PATCH] than RFA.
>
> *No thanks*.  If you start making these kind of
> help-the-robot-by-making-standardization-rules requests rather
> than throwing in all and any convention you see, then this
> feature will quickly be getting in the way.  I'm just not going
> to mark a patch sent to gcc-patches with "patch".  It's
> redundant: non-referencing messages that go there are usually
> new patches, but patches are not always requests for approval,
> a.k.a. requesting other maintainer attention.

Sorry, but RFA has a very high false positive rate.

Why, just today, there were three [RFA]'s with no patches in them.
There have been *0* messages with [PATCH] in them with no patches in 
them.

The tool will be more in the way if it has a high false positive rate 
than if it  misses the occasional patch.

> So, RFA or whatever convention with the same meaning is
> basically for human consumption, but of course it'd be nice if
> bugzilla could recognize it.
>
> brgds, H-P