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

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.

Sorry, but RFA has a very high false positive rate.

Why, just today, there were three [RFA]'s with no patches in them.
There have been *0* messages with [PATCH] in them with no patches in them.

The tool will be more in the way if it has a high false positive rate than if it misses the occasional patch.

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.

brgds, H-P

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