On 9/30/25 6:04 AM, Jonathan Wakely 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.
I am not a fan of easy-hack, and I find good-first-bug mentally longer
because it is one more word (even if fewer characters). However, I don't
really mind how wordy it is because bugzilla can autofill the options
based on the partial typing, so I don't care about wordiness
I like beginner-improvement and I'm fine with good-first-bug. If
would-be contributors are already searching for one, we should
definitely standardize on the one that is already searched (or at least
match the beginning). I'll try to see if I can look up what kernel, QEMU
and other systems engineering projects use.
--
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
It/she
