This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> The [Bug foo/nnn] tags tend to shove the actual subject off the
>> right-hand side of the gcc-bugs summary window. Could these be moved
>> to the end of the line? And could we dispense with the foo/ bit,
>> which AFAIunderstand is a relict of GNATS?
>
> The "[Bug foo/" does allow you to see at a glance which part of the
> compiler the bug report relates to (and therefore whether it is
> likely to be of interest) better than free-form subjects. Though
> GNATS-style starting with just foo/nnn would make more space
> available.
I find just the opposite... in months it's been like this, I have
never cared what the foo/ tag was, and I certainly don't care what the
bug number is (that information is in the body of the message).
> Also not marking new reports with "New: ", but rather starting
> subjects of follow-ups with "Re: " (before the bug number).
This would indeed be nice.
>> | From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
>> | Subject: stabs register number out of range [Bug 12860]
>> | To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
>
> You've lost gcc-bugzilla altogether from these headers
That was deliberate. Assuming that gcc-bugs is to be preserved in its
present form, the existence of gcc-bugzilla should be an
implementation detail, completely hidden (Followup-To/Reply-To/MCT/MFT
headers would state gcc-bugzilla, but those are not shown normally)
> - better that as I've suggested it should be To:
> gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org with gcc-bugs not being mentioned in the
> headers of the message to gcc-bugs.
This would also be fine, but if I understand Ian correctly it would
interfere with the spam filtering.
It is very important to me that the From: line not be munged anymore.
Munging the From: line causes BBDB to go nuts and ask me if I want to
add another 'real name' alias to the gcc-bugzilla entry on every other
message.
zw