Re: Outcome of the bugzilla threads

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

Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

| On Nov 9, 2003, at 2:28 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
| >
| > | Just so we are clear on the outcome of all these threads about
| > bugzilla
| > |
| > | 1. In regards to threading, we want gcc-bugzilla to just be a
| > | subscriber to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, and handle mail that way (IE only
| > | echo things not sent to the list, back to the list)
| > |
| > | 2. We want to stop from munging in gcc-bugzilla
| > |
| > | Do i have this right?
| >
| > I'm OK with (2), I'm confused by (1).
| 
| Well, IIRC, that was the solution posted by someone that should work.
| 
| In order to let things thread properly, rather than have
| gcc-bugzilla's script send out mail to gcc-bugs all the time, let it
| listen to mail on gcc-bugs instead (IE followups go to gcc-bugs, not
| gcc-bugzilla).  Then, people following up to gcc-bugs would be
| threaded right (and still be entered into the database), only replies
| on the web wouldn't thread properly.
| 
| At least, that was my understanding.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- Gaby