Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

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

> Great.
>
> 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