From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Edwards To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Joe Buck , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: patch tracking Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:16:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010914171648.A2363@disaster.jaj.com> References: <200109141902.MAA15299@atrus.synopsys.com> <20010914140254.F443@codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00567.html On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 02:02:54PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I have not decided whether the tracker should generate one big nag > message per week, or follow up to each individual thread. The former > would be less obnoxious, but then obnoxiousness is kind of the point. How about individual messages to the people privately, and one big summary to the list? If I were to receive N nag messages, it would be easier to delete each message as I review the patch. With a big summary, I must remember which ones I have since reviewed; with individual nags, I can simply look at which messages remain in my mailbox. Although I must point out that the problem of patch queuing has been solved before. I strongly recommend adopting something used on sourceforge or mozilla or whatever for GCC's purposes. Else we're right back where we started: people needing to be freed up for patch review (Zack) are getting stuck with other duties (writing patch queuing nagging programs). Granted, Zack's doing this already on his own, but it made a good example. *grin* Phil -- Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken. - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC