This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
And we want all bug discussion to be in the bug db.
So don't copy gcc-bugs, only gcc-bugzilla.
Adding Mail-Copies-To: and Mail-Followup-To: headers to bugzilla
generated mail may help with this,
see below,
at least with some MUAs. See
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html [I think this made it into
one of the DRUMS proposed RFCs but I can't find them right now].
Since you're soliciting suggestions:
It would help if all the messages sent out in response to an update of
a single bug had the same message-id so that duplicate message filters
would work on them.
Actually, this is something else doing it, or a bug.
The mail to gcc-bugs and to people gets the same message-id:
Message-ID: %msgid%
my $msgid = "<" . $values{'creation_ts'} . "." . $id . "." .
$values{'reporter'} . ">";
substs{"msgid"} = $msgid
Can someone please send me one of each where this happens so i can see
the message ids?
Right now if someone adds a comment to a bug that
I reported or is assigned to me, I get one copy of the comment in my
inbox (which is what I want) and another copy in the gcc-bugs folder.
I can tell whether this is Bugzilla's fault or not from seeing the
messages.
The [Bug foo/nnn] tags tend to shove the actual subject off the
right-hand side of the gcc-bugs summary window.
Sure, if this is what people want
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?
It used to be [Bug nnn], I was asked to add the component since most
people can't tell from the subject whether they care about the
component.
Thus, I did.
The [3.x regression] tags also do this - aren't these supposed to be
keywords?
The From: munging causes BBDB to go nuts.
Okay, do me a favor then, since i'm not all that clear on this.
Please rearrange/rewrite the following so that it's how it should be:
Return-Path: <dberlin@gcc.gnu.org>
From: "%changer%" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: %to%
In-Reply-To: %inreplyto%
References: %inreplyto%
Message-ID: %msgid%
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug %component%/%bugid%] %neworchanged%%summary%
X-Bugzilla-Reason: %reasonsheader%
The actual content of interest is lost in all this boilerplate.
I would far rather see something like this instead:
| From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>
| Subject: stabs register number out of range [Bug 12860]
| To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
| Date: 7 Nov 2003 18:16:12 -0000
|
| Looks like the psedu registers from gcc are being used for the debug
info.
|
| --
| Keywords: +wrong-code
| Target Milestone: ->3.4
|
| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12860
where that -- is a proper sig delimiter (dash dash space newline).
Done, at least, i separated new comments from diffs (put new comments
at the top, diffs after the sig) and removed the top text.
If you want to change the diff format, it's gonna be a little bit of
work (that i'm not up for ATM).
See FormatTriple and it's caller in BugMail.pm