On 27/06/2024 13:29, Sam James via Gcc wrote: > "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <richard.earns...@arm.com> writes: > >> On 24/06/2024 22:34, Sam James via Gcc wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This comes up in #gcc on IRC every so often, so finally >>> writing an RFC. >>> >>> What? >>> --- >>> >>> I propose that MAINTAINERS be modified to be of the form, >>> adding an extra field for their GCC/sourceware account: >>> <Name> <Email> <Email on gcc.gnu.org BZ / >>> sourceware account> >>> Joe Bloggs joeblo...@example.com jblo...@gcc.gnu.org >>> >>> Further, that the field must not be blank (-> must have a BZ account; >>> there were/are some without at all)! >>> >>> Why? >>> --- >>> >>> 1) This is tied to whether or not people should use their committer email >>> on Bugzilla or a personal email. A lot of people don't seem to use their >>> committer email (-> no permissions) and end up not closing bugs, so >>> pinskia (and often myself these days) end up doing it for them. >>> >>> 2) It's standard practice to wish to CC the committer of a bisect result >>> - or to CC someone who you know wrote patches on a subject area. Doing >>> this on Bugzilla is challenging when there's no map between committer >>> <-> BZ account. >>> >>> Specifically, there are folks who have git committer+author as >>> joeblo...@example.com (or maybe even coold...@example.com) where the >>> local part of the address has *no relation* to their GCC/sw account, >>> so finding who to CC is difficult without e.g. trawling through gcc-cvs >>> mails or asking overseers for help. >>> >>> Summary >>> --- >>> >>> TL;DR: The proposal is: >>> >>> 1) MAINTAINERS should list a field containing either the gcc.gnu.org >>> email in full, or their gcc username (bikeshedding semi-welcome); >>> >>> 2) It should become a requirement that to be in MAINTAINERS, one must >>> possess a Bugzilla account (ideally using their gcc.gnu.org email). >>> >>> thanks, >>> sam >> >> >> How does this work for cases where: >> 1) Committer is pushing to a personal or other copy of the repository >> 2) Developers who have used the 'fetch' model to pull another developer's >> patches from 1 above? >> >> Forcing these to be rewritten will break the hashes. > > To be clear, my proposal doesn't touch on the actual git metadata people > should use, although Arsen's followup one does.
Oops! I've replied to Arsen's message directly. >> >> R. > > thanks, > sam
