Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 29 October 2008 15:42:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> A bi-weekly status report of the patch tracker sent to gcc-patches
>>> would definitively make the list of unreviewed patches more visible. I
>>> believe this may also be a problem for the continuous builder: If
>>> there is no visible feedback from it, that is, if one needs to
>>> actively check its status, then it is likely to be missed/neglected.
>>
>> I did this for about 2 weeks, and was asked privately by a few to stop
>> because they saw it as spam.
>
> Sending those reports to the mailing list was always the main use I
> saw for the patch tracker. I'd like to open this issue up. Who would
> consider those reports to be spam? Who would be opposed to
> reinstating the patch tracker and having it send out notes about
> patches which have not been reviewed?
I think it's not remotely spam - certainly not by any of the standard
definitions of BI or UCE, and I think it's distorting the meaning of the word
to call it spam, and more of a pejorative than a meaningful description.
I also think it would be trivial to filter on subject or any number of other
criteria for those who really didn't want to see it, and also that (given the
volume of mail on the -patches list) not even worth the effort of ignoring or
caring about for anyone who wasn't interested. One post amongst the
thousand-or-so we get in an average week? Come on!
As to the actual substance of the matter at hand: I thought the patch
tracker was a boon. I would be very glad to see it brought back into service.
The more automation we can use to help us overcome or mitigate our human
failings, the better.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
