From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10135 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 12:39:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10128 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2003 12:39:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gold.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2003 12:39:55 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by gold.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18hUGv-0000Kk-00; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:39:53 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18hUGu-0000U6-00; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:39:52 +0000 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 12:39:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Christopher Faylor cc: Daniel Berlin , Subject: Re: Web part of bugzilla is ready (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20030208024436.GA27397@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 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