This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: getting patches organized
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: getting patches organized
- From: Jason Molenda <jsm at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:15:03 -0800
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <199911172343.SAA28254@zwingli.cygnus.com>
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 06:43:56PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> The only system I'm really familiar with is GNATS. GNATS can
> automatically stash E-mail conversation related to a patch in the
> patch record ("PR"), which is exactly what we want. It's got web
> interfaces, a decent query ability, and so on. So I think it would
> work great.
If folks are not familiar with GNATS and want to see what it looks like,
There are several active databases on here; select something like
autoconf, automake or java and you can browse around read-only.
No one is really using gnats to track patches right no on sourceware.
I have used gnats to track patches for the gnats project itself (I do
a little recreational hacking on gnats) with the standard setup.
We can customize the problem report 'states' (a ticket aka defect aka
problem report or PR goes from 'open' through a few states to 'closed'
normally) to work better for patches like Jim suggested.
I can easily set up PR edit access for people who should get that access.
If someone doesn't like the web interface, there are several other
interfaces to gnats. Many operations can be done via e-mail; there are
command-line, emacs, and tcl/tk interfaces as well.
If we were to significantly customize the GDB patches gnats database for
patches in particular, then I'd probably advocate an entirely separate
gnats database for real GDB bug reports (if everyone ever agrees that
they want one). You can customize things like PR states for a single
database, but all of the categories of PRs in that database would have
to share the same kinds of states.
Free the Software!