Paolo Carlini writes:
> On 06/07/2010 09:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
>> It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
>> read, and scan for messages that say "committed to branch B at
>> revision R." It
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting NightStrike :
>
>> Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
>
> How about requiring that a patch should have an associated open PR with the
> patch keyword to be considered for pinging.
> Then you can do a b
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Ideally, after a day of this, people will start
> sending such messages to effectively close threads, and then you'll
> see very few messages from me.
That's a one way trip to my bozo bin...
Ciao!
Steven
On 06/07/2010 09:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
> It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
> read, and scan for messages that say "committed to branch B at
> revision R." It's a lot more complicated to f
> Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
> It's very trivial for me to read through a mailing list that I already
> read, and scan for messages that say "committed to branch B at
> revision R." It's a lot more complicated to find out if something has
> been committed m
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
>> topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
>> flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
>> been waiting since Novemb
> Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
> topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
> flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
> been waiting since November
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00177.h
NightStrike writes:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
>>> thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
>>> people who commit
On 6/7/10, NightStrike wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> >> threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
> >> thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
> >>
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
>> thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
>> people who commit changes do what Kai is doing
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike wrote:
> threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
> thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
> people who commit changes do what Kai is doing so that it's clear that
> the thread is done with. I don't
Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
been waiting since November
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00177.html). I t
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
