This is the mail archive of the 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

On Sep 27, 2003, at 1:53 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:


On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Userids it can't determine (due to non-existent bugzilla accounts or
not writing from the same email address you use in your bugzilla mail)
are currently set to me, rather than creating them new accounts. It'll
likely just be set to an "unknown commenter" account with the from
pasted into the text of their followup.

I don't want to send patches from hp gcc gnu org but I want to be that my "official" bugzilla account. Can I make that and this addresses aliases (and more addresses)?

I'm working on this functionality, actually.
It'll probably be trivial, like a list of extra incoming email addresses for a given account.

An example of this theory is that patches with subjects not starting
with [PATCH] don't get processed (and any followup referencing them
won't get processed as a result). This is good enough, since people
are supposed to do it. Patches that don't do it have the same chance as
before of being lost in the ether.

Please also [RFA] and [RFA:] (request for approval) as the convention is, as was suggested last time this came up. (Maybe RFC too, but IMHO that's a misnomer.)

The problem is that nobody uses that.
In the past three months (IE since june), it's been used
[dberlin@dberlin dberlin]$ pcregrep "Subject:\s*\[RFA.*\]" gcc-patches|wc
18 131 1080

18 times.

I'd rather we standardize on [PATCH] than RFA.

brgds, H-P

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