On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 2:04 AM Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 09:39, Dhruv Chawla via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 30/09/25 13:19, Sam James via Gcc wrote: > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > > > > Andrew Pinski <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> As talked about during the GNU tools cauldron, the gdb and gcc > > >> keywords usage here are different but folks mentioned it would be a > > >> good idea to have the same between the 2 bugzilla instances. Right now > > >> gcc is easyhack while gdb uses good-first-bug. Both have issues with > > >> the naming of each. > > > > > > 'good-first-*' is what people tend to search for in other > > > projects. Having it aligned (and optimising for new contributors) makes > > > sense, I think. > > > > > >> [...] > > > > > > sam > > > > +1 to this. I feel like "beginner-improvement" and "easyhack" are harder to > > parse than "good-first-bug" or "good-first-issue" (which LLVM uses FWIW), > > and > > it is not immediately obvious to me what either of them mean. > > Yeah, I really don't care that somebody might decide to work on a > "good first issue" as their second or third issue. It would still a > good first one for somebody else, it just happens to be that person's > second or third. > > "beginner-improvement" is too long, and I had the same question as > Florian about who or what is being improved.
Those are all good points about "beginner-improvement" that I didn't think of. Note on the issue of bug vs issue; I rather go with issue rather than bug; as bug can be seen as more negative than an issue. Or maybe change. first-good-change but let's see what other projects use. Thanks, Andrew
