This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Future of gccbug
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, Andrew Pinski <apinski at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Date: 09 Nov 2003 19:16:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: Future of gccbug
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <200311091520.hA9FK2T05155@pc960.cambridge.arm.com><jeekwha4iz.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:
| Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
|
| > At present it's impossible to spot the new reports amongst the dross that
| > fills the bug-gcc list, which tends to mean that I have to ignore the list
| > entirely and rely on searches for possible that might be of interest.
|
| You can split on "New: " in the subject. Procmail is your friend.
I second Richard here. Not just because it would be possible to split
on "New: " means it is convenient to put all bugzilla traffic in
gcc-bugs. It would really become more readable if bugzilla traffic
were put on a dedicated list. Given that follow ups in bugzilla
traffic don't thread well and that people have to connect to the
online database anyway, it is near to not useful to send the traffic
on gcc-bugs.
-- Gaby