Re: Web part of bugzilla is ready (fwd)

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On the other side, I think that anything that shows up in bugzilla should
> generate gcc-bugs email.  There's no reason to generate gcc-prs mail,
> AFAICT.  You can do that now with no help from me, I think.

I believe that the gcc-bugs list should be told that gcc-bugzilla (or 
whatever - the Bugzilla address that mail followups to Bugzilla bugs get 
sent to) is another name for itself, so it accepts messages without 
gcc-bugs explicitly in their headers.  (A followup mail sent to 
gcc-bugzilla should appear on the list and in the database.  If people CC 
mails to both this means lots of messages get duplicated on the list, 
which is undesirable, so it's good if the messages on gcc-bugs don't 
actually mention gcc-bugs in the To/CC headers if they mention 
gcc-bugzilla.  This can always be dealt with after the transition if 
complicated; duplicate messages aren't too serious a problem.  The gcc-prs 
list can then go away - the only messages it gets that gcc-bugs doesn't 
are mail followups to PRs sent to gcc-gnats only, and they should appear 
on gcc-bugs in future.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk