Re: [RFC] autopinger

["Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> For each PR, if the PR is assigned to somebody, I recommend that you
> mention that person in the list.  Perhaps the patch pinger should CC
> those people; perhaps not.

The pinger attempts to find out the "author" of the patch. The first choice is
the author of the mail to gcc-patches; the second choice is the assigned field
in Bugzilla. As a matter of fact, right now I only post patches which have an
associated mail to gcc-patches, so the second choice is never taken. It would
become useful when/if I am asked to make it ping also patches attacched to
Bugzilla, which some people don't like because it violates our rules that each
patch should be posted to gcc-patches[1].

This said, do you believe that explicitally.listing the assignee of the bug
together with the "author" of the patch (mail sender) is still useful? What
would the rationale be?

> I also think the message should list the priority, the target
> milestone, and the "known to work" and "known to fail" fields.  That
> will let people more easily prioritize the information in the message
> without having to go look at the PR.

Sure, I will imlement these. I'm assuming that for "priority" you actually mean
"severity", since we are not using the priority field at this point.

Thanks for the feedback.

Giovanni Bajo


[1] I just had an idea. If the pinger finds a patch in Bugzilla which is not
sent to gcc-patches, it could generate a ping mail to the author of the patch,
remembering him to post it to gcc-patches, until he does, or the attacchment is
marked as obsolete (if the patch is invalid).