This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
On Nov 7, 2003, at 4:16 PM, gnat-dev@buzco.nyct.net wrote:
On 03-11-07 15:22:31, Daniel Berlin wrote:
| On Nov 7, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
[snip]
| > and bugzilla does not put proper references.
| Yes it does. It adds both "In-Reply-To" and "References:" as
appropriate.
| This was done so the bugzilla replies thread properly.
| > -- Gaby
=== End quoted text ===
Your idea of "appropriate" and mine seem to differ. For instance, this
list seems to keep the message-id, in-reply-to and references from the
original mail. Result -- the mail threads nicely within the discussion.
Right, that's what i meant
OTOH, bugzilla puts the message-id of the +original+ PR in both
in-reply-to and references. Result -- no threading within a PR.
Also, bugzilla changes the message-id, also a pain.
It has to in order to make it do what it does now.
It's the way it constructs message ids that let's it thread. It
doesn't store the message ids of messages it's sent out (and this
wouldn't help, since we don't know what comments are replies to other
comments).
BTW, incoming mail goes through a duplicate message filter which is
defeated by changing the message-id; and I read it in the Mutt.
On this list, my bcc to self shows up and the resend (if there is one)
does not. Also, other's replies to my mail thread properly.
On bugzilla mail, I must +manually+ delete the bcc to self after the
list mail comes in.
It would also be nice if stuff displayed on bugzilla-WWW was threaded
instead of flat.
It can't.
It doesn't know what is a reply and what isn't.
There's no tracking of what comments are replies to other comments.
This is fairly common in bug-tracking systems. In fact, i'm not really
aware of one that does threaded messages in a WWW interface.