Re: [cdt-dev] Proposal - abolish cdt-patch

["Thomas Fletcher" <thomasf@xxxxxxx>]

Douglas Schaefer <dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> 
> Good points Thomas, 
> 
> I've seen many patches in the bugzilla, some are pretty big (e.g. the
> 64-bit port of SWT done by Red Hat). There shouldn't be any technical
> issues that can't be solved. 

No .. I don't doubt it, even if it is a mis-configured system.  I have
complete faith in the system, once it starts working for me =-)
 
> I'm just worried that the patches are getting buried in the mailing list
> as it is. I know for a fact that at least one patch went into the list
> just before Christmas and got "lost" and there are a number of patches
> in limbo that were submitted last week. The biggest problem I see,
> especially as the number of committers grow, is who owns committing a
> given patch. With bugzilla, you can see whether someone has started to
> look at your patch and who that someone is. Also, it would be easier to
> track from the commit log (which should have the bugzilla number ;-) to
> the original patch as opposed to digging through the mailing list
> archives for it (I know my lawyers would be happy to see this). 
> 
> At any rate, in the end, it can be a personal choice. If someone wants
> to track their patches in bugzilla, they can. We certainly are not going
> to reject a patch because it showed up there instead of the patch list. 

Well one thing that you won't get any complaints from from me is insisting
that every patch be accompanied by a bugzilla number.  That way at the
very least you can scan the patch mailing list for things that haven't
been accepted and check the bugzilla state (and vice-versa, you can say
that you sent a patch to cdt-patch mailing list in bugzilla).

I just feel that the mailing list is higher visibility for the casual
observer while bugzilla is very focused visibility for a much more limited
audience.  Since we are still getting significant "design style" type 
patches, it is worthwhile to be able to "see" that.

Incidentally I actually think that I did have a patch lost on the mailing
list since the functionality doesn't seem to be in 1.2 for something I
used (Navigate, show in ...) =;-)

Just my few cents,
 Thomas

> "Thomas Fletcher" <thomasf@xxxxxxx> 
> 
> 
> 02/10/2004 04:44 AM 
> 
> 
> Please respond to
> thomasf@xxxxxxx
> 
> 
> To
> <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 
> 
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [cdt-dev] Proposal - abolish cdt-patch
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Schaefer <dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> 
> > 
> > That should grab your attention. 
> > 
> > One thing I notice the Eclipse platform folks doing is using bugzilla
> > for submitting, holding discussions, and managing patches. The problem
> I
> > see with our cdt-patch list, especially after a week when a lot of
> > committers were away, is loosing track of which patches have been
> > applied and ownership on who is going to apply them. Using bugzilla
> will
> > give patches an owner and a status and reduce our dependency on all of
> > the committers' mail system to ensure patches get appropriate
> attention.
> > 
> > 
> > Along with this proposal would be a continuation of the proposal to
> > institute an inbox mailing list as the default owners on new bugs. The
> > idea would be that all committers would be members of the inbox list
> so
> > they can see when new bugs get raised and patch requests come in. 
> 
> -1
> 
> I like the idea of having the discussions go on via bugzilla rather than
> in the patch list ... but unfortunately for submitting patches I have 
> never been able to attach a patch to bugzilla, and I worry about patches
> being "buried" and getting lost until someone goes and gets into their
> bugzilla bugs.  With the exception of the occasional burst of activity,
> I don't find that the cdt-patch list is terribly full of traffic.
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 



--