Comments on Patching GCC

[Caroline Tice]

In general I think having a better way to track submitted patches so 
that they don't get lost is
a very good idea.  My one concern about attaching it to Bugzilla is: 
What if someone wants to
submit a patch for a (new) feature or extension, rather than a bug?  Is 
Bugzilla supposed to be used
to track new feature development as well as existing bugs?  (I really 
don't know; I'm just asking).

-- Caroline Tice
ctice@apple.com

On Sep 23, 2004, at 8:04 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 04:43 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can script most of this, actually.
>>> I'm pretty sure i can easily make a script that you hand a patch
>>> title,
>>> possibly an existing bug id, a patch, and a changelog, and it'll
>>> handle submission and give you a bug id and a patch id.
>>>
>>> I can also make a script that will list the outstanding submissions 
>>> by
>>> bug and patch id, and let you retrieve patches by id.
>>>
>>> Of course, this would *only* work for patches submitted using the
>>> script.
>>
>> Yes. My script can instead be retrofitted for any posted patch: it's 
>> just a
>> matter of setting the 'patch' keyword in Bugzilla, and adding a 
>> comment with a
>> link to gcc-patches. And the good news is that we already do this for 
>> most of
>> the patches. The only thing is that we would need to keep the patch 
>> keyword in
>> sync: if the patch is reviewed asking for changes, the patch keyword 
>> needs to
>> be disabled until a new patch is posted (if it's taking too long), 
>> otherwise
>> it'll keep pinging.
>>
>
> Right, which is why i was going to do it based on attachments, the 
> patch
> keyword and attachment flag, and keep track of the obsoletes flag you
> can set on attachments :)
>
>> Giovanni Bajo
>>
>>
> -- 
>