Re: What's gcc-prs for?!?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Feb 16, 2004, at 8:33 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >
> > > I *thought* it had been agreed in the last time we went round this
> > > discussion loop that gcc-prs is where all the bugzilla dribblings
> > > would be forwarded, leaving gcc-bugs for just new reports.
> >
> > To what effect? It looks like many new reports are invalid and closed 
> > in a
> > shot.
> To the effect that I would have time to look at the new reports in
> sufficient detail to decide whether they are really worth pursuing.  As
> things stand I take one look at a folder containing 80 odd messages 
> (most
> of which are dross) and my eyes glaze over.  I don't need to know that 
> a
> bug has had a new attachment, I don't need to know that someone else 
> has
> reproduced the problem -- if I need that I can open the full report -- 
> I
> don't even need to know if it's been closed.
>
> > > Anyway, I find gcc-bugs impossible to track these days -- there's
> > > just too much noise on it.
> >
> > We asked many times on inputs about this. Would you please provide 
> > some
> > examples of messages that you think are just noise and could be 
> > filtered away
> > from gcc-bugs?
>
> Go and look at the previous discussion on this topic.  My view hasn't
> changed since then.  As things stand gcc-bugs is pretty much useless 
> to me
> -- I'm even considering unsubscribing.  And if I do that the only bugs 
> I'll ever see are the ones that match my bugzilla filters -- and even
> those I'll only look at once in a while.
Uh, just as an FYI, all the bug subjects have the exact same format.
You can always just filter on new bugs simply by looking for bugs that 
have the format

^[Bug [a-z-+]+\/[0-9]+] New:
(untested, but should work)

Why not just filter those into a separate folder?
(not that i won't implement the changes we've discussed before, i'm 
just curious)