Some bug policies [Was: Bug Digest 5/24]

[Daniel Berlin]

On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 08:36  PM, Dara Hazeghi wrote:

>> I don't think we want discussion of bugs in this
>> list. A bug which is
>> discussed is lost until it's filed to Bugzilla. And
>> besides, we are not
>> asking users to post their bugs in gcc-bugs.
>> gcc-bugs is just a way to track
>> what's going on, people should file bugs to
>> Bugzilla, and then discuss them
>> on the audit trail of the bug itself.
>
> That's reasonable. I guess sometimes I see people send
> messages saying "xyz doesn't work here" I think "abc"
> is to blame, and someone will respond in kind, but
> that's pretty rare, and usually it's the developers
> anyway, so that works I guess...
>
>> Yes, but we still don't want the list to be flooded.
>> If you feel that there
>> are a certain kind of "bug updates" that shouldn't
>> need to be posted on
>> gcc-bugs, just raise the issue, we can fully
>> configure which kind of mails
>> gcc-bugs gets.
>
> I think most of the stuff there is probably okay. It
> also seems to be settling down now, as the number of
> unconfirmed bugs drops...
>
>> the bug's audit trail,
>> you could explain the author to post it to
>> gcc-patches. Also, we could add a
>> keyword "patch-pending" for bugs whose patch was not
>> reviewed yet (but I
>> kind of fear that reviewers are not going to query
>> for it often...)
>
> Yes, I see what you mean. I'll certainly encourage bug
> submitters to send their patches to gcc-patches. I
> almost wish there was a Status category for bugs with
> submitted patches, but I suppose that'll complicate
> things a bit unnecessarily.

YOu can add already mark attachments as being a patch (I can also add 
the nice patchviewer if people want to review patches on bugzilla. It 
gives you the nice color coded expandable diffs, and can actually 
change the amount of context/what version the patch is against).
You can add an attachment flag for "reviewed" if you like.
>