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 16:13:02 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Sorry, but RFA has a very high false positive rate.
I see the opposite.
> Why, just today, there were three [RFA]'s with no patches in them.
No, there's been no original [RFA] or [RFA:] messages today to
gcc-patches. Going by the archive, that is. I don't know where
you look; please clarify.
There's been one message marked RFA: that *was* a patch. There
was another, in a thread marked "Re: [RFA/RFT] libffi reorg
(take 3)" (and similar) in response to a patch sent earlier.
> There have been *0* messages with [PATCH] in them with no patches in
What's that supposed to mean? That people like marking their
patches really loud?
Oh well, if you just don't like it, then ignore RFA. If you
think I'm the only one using it as "request for approval", you
won't lose much.
Anyway, why not have bugzilla look at *all messages* to
gcc-patches that don't reference another instead of telling
people how to mark their patches to please bugzilla?