This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2003, at 1:53 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > 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*\[RFA.*\]"
> 18 131 1080
> 18 times.
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.
> 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.
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.