Re: Future of gccbug

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| On Nov 9, 2003, at 1:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > 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
| 
| Yes, but if we fix that threading problem, do you still want two lists?

yes.

| Copying all bug messages to two lists, where one only gets New
| messages, is pretty annoying to code, to be honest.
| What we have now, where gcc-bugs gets all the mail, was quite easy to
| do.

I understood at some point that all bugzilla traffic go into a
separate list and only bugs submitted to gcc-bugs either via gccbug or
direct mails would need "manual" entry in bugzilla.  How is that
copying all bug messages to two lists?

-- Gaby