From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31049 invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2002 22:00:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31024 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2002 22:00:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO emf.net) (205.149.0.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2002 22:00:01 -0000 Received: (from lord@localhost) by emf.net (K/K) id VAA00414; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:09:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:37:00 -0000 From: Tom Lord Message-Id: <200212230509.VAA00414@emf.net> To: mark@codesourcery.com CC: janis187@us.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <71990000.1040618386@warlock.codesourcery.com> (message from Mark Mitchell on Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:39:46 -0800) Subject: Re: regression hunt status, question about reports to mailing list References: <71990000.1040618386@warlock.codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01382.txt.bz2 Janis Johnsen: > Should I continue to send mail to gcc@gcc.gnu.org when I identify the > patch that caused a regression or that fixed a mainline regression that > still exists on a release branch? This seemed like a good idea when > there was one every couple of days, but I'm continuing to discover > short-cuts that make it faster and easier, so the trickle of mail might > be getting large enough to be annoying (I've got three more almost ready > to report this morning). Mark Mitchell: I think what you're doing is tremendously useful. I'd just like you to keep doing it. :-) With changeset-oriented revision control and a bug tracking system that produces machine processable results (I still think QMtest is needlessly complicated but it does have that property), the work Janis is doing could be fully automated, completely precise, and continuously performed. And more besides (how about identifying a patch on anyone's branch that fixes a mainline regression). "This Way Up", -t