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.
