This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:38:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
- References: <Pine.BSF.email@example.com>
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.
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.
The problem is that nobody uses that.
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
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.)
In the past three months (IE since june), it's been used
[dberlin@dberlin dberlin]$ pcregrep "Subject:\s*\[RFA.*\]"
18 131 1080
I'd rather we standardize on [PATCH] than RFA.