Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 06:57:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
> > > Using GNATS as the infrastructure to track patches is pathetic.
>
> > Not as pathetic as `cagney's mailbox sitting on a lapbrick with a 
> > failing hard disk'.
>
>
> Well, yes. :-)  I didn't mean "you, the fellow who has put patches
> into gnats, are a fool" -- I meant that the overhead over putting
> patches in gnats is too high compared with just sending them to
> gdb-patches.  IMHO this is a method that will fail, which is why
> I dragged my feet when Elena originally requested the gdb-patches
> gnats database be set up.  Ignoring the fact that gnats is a bug
> tracker--not a magical patch tracking database--as long as it isn't
> at the center of every developer/maintainer's patch workflow, it
> will be doomed to irrelevance.

Actually the overhead is effectively zero.  Any patch not touched for a 
week gets run through a script that turns it into a gnats entry.

Once there, I and everyone else can search it.  I know of non-mainstream 
developers that perfer this as it is easier to pick up a task (and 
easier to track than either gdb@ or gdb-patches@).

It sux, but sux less than not doing it.  It is interum measure that will 
hopefully be replaced by bugzilla.

Andrew