From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14915 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 23:59:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14907 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 23:59:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO molenda.com) (192.220.74.81) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 23:59:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 84788 invoked by uid 19025); 19 Feb 2003 23:59:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:59:00 -0000 From: Jason Molenda To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Message-ID: <20030219155956.A83389@molenda.com> References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218023553.2BBB73D02@localhost.redhat.com> <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <15953.20132.193102.752916@localhost.redhat.com> <20030219014904.GA11446@nevyn.them.org> <3E539FF8.70201@redhat.com> <20030219152123.GA4751@nevyn.them.org> <3E53B0D9.2070009@redhat.com> <20030219153559.A77442@molenda.com> <3E5419CD.8050203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3E5419CD.8050203@redhat.com>; from ac131313@redhat.com on Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 06:57:01PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00388.txt.bz2 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. It's got to be easy, it's got to be relevant, and it's gotta be the way everything is done. > > Using mailing lists to track patches is annoying. > > Er, you can't track patches using a mailing list. A mailing list can be > used to submit/discuss patches. It can't be used to track their state. > that needs a database. I was speaking loosely - I meant the combination of the mailing list and the web archives of that mailing list. The mailing list web archives are a being used as the patch repository right now--people use URLs into the archives to refer to old patches, they use google or the htdig search engine to find old patches, and they grope around blindly to figure out what ever happened with a given patch. > Time to install aegis, ay? I've never looked at Aegis, so I can't say. First the gdb maintainers and developers need to decide what they want and will use, then make it exist; not look at what exists and settle for it. Maybe Aegis is exactly what we'd all love in a magical patch tracking database and we can use it as-is, but IMHO it's too early in that discussion to care one way or another. J