From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26674 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 00:21:48 -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 26657 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 00:21:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 00:21:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147DA2ED1; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:26:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5420B7.70807@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:21:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Molenda Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process 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> <20030219155956.A83389@molenda.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00390.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. 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