GCC mini-summit - Patch tracker

2007-04-20 Thread Daniel Berlin
We discussed the patch tracker. None of the active maintainers who were there appear to use it very much or at all. This is because it does not enable them to easily review patches, only to see which they have missed ;) I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally

Re: GCC mini-summit - Patch tracker

2007-04-20 Thread Tom Tromey
Ian I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally Ian welcomed. Bummer. Why? Dan If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it. If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the Area field somehow. I was filtering based on preprocessor and

RE: GCC mini-summit - Patch tracker

2007-04-20 Thread Dave Korn
On 20 April 2007 18:43, Tom Tromey wrote: Ian I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally Ian welcomed. Bummer. Why? Dan If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it. If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the Area field

Re: GCC mini-summit - Patch tracker

2007-04-20 Thread Tom Tromey
Dave == Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize the Area field somehow. I was filtering based on preprocessor and then yesterday noticed things filed against libcpp and cpp. Dave Heh. Guilty as charged. Sorry, wasn't trying to

Re: GCC mini-summit - Patch tracker

2007-04-20 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 20 Apr 2007 11:42:57 -0600, Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ian I proposed automatic e-mail pings, but that wasn't generally Ian welcomed. Bummer. Why? Dan If people are okay with this, I have no problem implementing it. If you're taking feature requests, it would be handy to canonize