Bugzilla success (ID 10911)

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 02:43  PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Dara Hazeghi wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clerification. gcc-gnats used to take
>> anything with Re: bug# + name and tack it onto the end
>> of the report.
>
> That is, Re: c/12345 (etc.) or just c/12345 beginning the subject line.
> Messages from users responding to previous communications from GNATS 
> will
> have the Re:, CVS log messages from log_accum wouldn't have had it 
> (but I
> presume log_accum has been / will be updated for Bugzilla, it checks 
> for
> the bug being in that number and category in the GNATS database before
> sending the mails).
I have a log_accum that does bugzilla bug appending in my home dir on 
sources.
It takes all reasonable forms of identifiying a bug (IE <something>/<a 
bug number>, Bug <a bug number>, PR <a bug number>, etc).
I have no way of testing it (though i tested the bugzilla specific 
parts by hand as much as possible), so i didn't ask anyone to put it 
into service yet.

>
>>> I'll make it verify the report has required fields
>>> filled in, so that
>>> it doesn't create pointless bugs.
>
> The creating "pending" bug reports for spam is the one bit of 
> behaviour we
> don't want emulated.  Messages with PR numbers should get filed
> appropriately.
No problem.

> Any messages that can't be handled should get bounced.
>