From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-162472-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30256 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2010 01:13:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 30239 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2010 01:13:54 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.205)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:13:50 +0000
Received: (qmail 55522 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2010 01:13:48 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (ja_walker@99.103.80.233 with plain)        by smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Jun 2010 18:13:48 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: PzjBk1SswBDvPR3ffkCrI96GQeKZUOnpt8EcctEr9xBSH0mn
Message-ID: <4C0D9979.90603@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 05:44:00 -0000
From: Ben White <ja_walker@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: ja_walker@sbcglobal.net
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Patch pinging
References: <AANLkTimRPovANTXmj2WHsTjpWyZRjq05M0igERMkMIMY@mail.gmail.com>	<201006071901.03000.ebotcazou@adacore.com>	<AANLkTikdIHWbzuI5gZODPsL9TTsj0TsSdaT8To3yc6d6@mail.gmail.com>	<4C0D4A26.6080703@oracle.com>	<mcrwrua37qr.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>	<4C0D5F0E.9030401@redhat.com> <4C0D616D.10809@oracle.com> <mcrfx0y35by.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <mcrfx0y35by.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

>Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>This makes sense. Thinking out loud myself, even for irregular
>>contributors, the idea of a ping-man doesn't really sound right, it's a
>>boring and error-prone task. Can anybody think of a way to automate the
>>job? For patches corresponding to Bugzilla entries we already have, more
>>or less, a complete procedure in place, I wonder if we could do
>>something for the other contributions...
>>    
>>
>
>I am 100% in favor of automating the job, but there is little point in
>discussing how we can automate the job unless somebody is prepared to
>volunteer to actually do the work.  We do have a volunteer willing to
>be a ping-man.
>
>Would anybody care to volunteer to implement something?
>
>Ian
>
>  
>
Would a modestly modified copy of Bugzilla be workable for that something? 
I.E. Patchzilla?

AllParadox
Ben White