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 13:45:25 -0400
- Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
- References: <Pine.BSF.email@example.com>
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
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.