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 16:19:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: Starting to track patches through bugzilla
- References: <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
That regardless of whether you think RFA is the standard, it appears
people think PATCH is.
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?
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.