Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process

Andrew Cagney
2003-02-20T00:21:48Z

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 06:57:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
>> > Using GNATS as the infrastructure to track patches is pathetic.
>
>>
>> Not as pathetic as `cagney's mailbox sitting on a lapbrick with a
>> failing hard disk'.
>
>
> Well, yes. :-) I didn't mean "you, the fellow who has put patches
> into gnats, are a fool" -- I meant that the overhead over putting
> patches in gnats is too high compared with just sending them to
> gdb-patches. IMHO this is a method that will fail, which is why
> I dragged my feet when Elena originally requested the gdb-patches
> gnats database be set up. Ignoring the fact that gnats is a bug
> tracker--not a magical patch tracking database--as long as it isn't
> at the center of every developer/maintainer's patch workflow, it
> will be doomed to irrelevance.

Actually the overhead is effectively zero. Any patch not touched for a
week gets run through a script that turns it into a gnats entry.

Once there, I and everyone else can search it. I know of non-mainstream
developers that perfer this as it is easier to pick up a task (and
easier to track than either gdb@ or gdb-patches@).

It sux, but sux less than not doing it. It is interum measure that will
hopefully be replaced by bugzilla.

Andrew