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

On Sep 27, 2003, at 4:13 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

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.

All my gcc mail goes to one mailbox, so it's quite possible it was to gcc@
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?

That regardless of whether you think RFA is the standard, it appears people think PATCH is.

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?

Because i'm starting simple?
Right now I'm not going to try to match all text in the message and all the text in the <possibly compressed> attachments against a regular expression to detect diffs.
Maybe later.

brgds, H-P

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