This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
On 03-11-07 14:39:45, Zack Weinberg wrote:
| Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
[snip re: "wide replies"]
| > If i had any clue how our list software worked (i don't even know what
| > the heck we use), i would make it ignore any replies where
| > gcc-bugzilla is copied.
| > Remember, only copying gcc-bugzilla actually gets the comment into the
| > database.
| > And we want all bug discussion to be in the bug db.
| > So don't copy gcc-bugs, only gcc-bugzilla.
Yah, the only way to do that is for all gcc-bugs traffic to go to the db
as well as gcc-bugzilla traffic.
| Adding Mail-Copies-To: and Mail-Followup-To: headers to bugzilla
| generated mail may help with this, 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].
Might, seems to be worth a try.
| 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. 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.
Yah, I had forgotten about that one. Since bugzilla doesn't know who is
subscribed to gcc-bugs, it is hard to avoid having this happen. One way
might be to have a "preferences" thingie to the effect of "I am
subscribed, don't send me direct mail." :)
| 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?
Good point, I second, but ++PLEASE++ don't eliminate it or any part of
it. Is useful for filtering.
| And could we dispense with the foo/ bit, which AFAI understand is a
| relict of GNATS?
Here I disagree, is more useful for filtering than just the bug number.
In particular, I am interested in Ada stuff and to a lesser degree in
stuff that is not language specific. I am definitely +not+ interested in
anything that is specific to any language other than Ada.
| The [3.x regression] tags also do this - aren't these supposed to be
| keywords?
Is not "regression" a keyword ? Haven't been using this field (yet) for
filtering, but it seems it might be useful. I can conceive of filtering
by release #, also.
| The From: munging causes BBDB to go nuts.
| The text of a bugzilla mailing has an immense amount of "noise".
Sure does !!!!!
| Consider:
| | From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
| | Subject: [Bug debug/12860] [3.4 regression] stabs register number out of range
Standard line-length limit violated here.
| | To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
| | Date: 7 Nov 2003 18:16:12 -0000
| | PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12860
IMHO, this is pure garbage, easier to simply copy the bug # from the
"Subject: " line into any bugzilla page than use that.
| | pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
This line above is much more useful than having this in the FROM line.
| | What |Removed |Added
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Keywords| |wrong-code
| | Target Milestone|--- |3.4
| | ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-07 18:16 -------
Please make this shorter (<= 72 chars) somehow.
Also, please fold (word-break) long lines (however received) both for
the WWW page and for mail.
| | Looks like the psedu registers from gcc are being used for the debug info.
| 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]
And I ...
| Subject: stabs register number out of range [Bug foo/12860 3.x regression]
as appropriate.
Alternatively, the info (how) at the end could be in a separate
X-bugtrack line or some such. :)
| | 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.
| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12860
Kill this line entirely.
Does anyone really use it ?
| where that -- is a proper sig delimiter (dash dash space newline).
| The munging of the From: line *should* be obviated by proper MCT/MRT
| headers.
| zw
=== End quoted text ===
== Buz :)
--
Buz Cory of BuzCo Systems -- New York NY USA http://BuzCo dot nyct dot net
<gnat-dev at BuzCo dot nyct dot net> (Buz as GNAT Programmer)
write to <helpdesk at BuzCo dot nyct dot net> for FREE help with:
Getting started with the Ada Programming Language dot
Ada 95 is here! Why use an archaic, bug-prone language?