On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It needs to be a summary report, not one message per patch. Does
> bugzilla have that capability?
Yes, here is an example of the whine report (from yesterday):
Click here to edit your whine schedule
Assigned bugs
ID
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Back at Cygnus I wrote a script which sent out a daily report for bugs
>> which had not been fixed, and I think it was very h
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Back at Cygnus I wrote a script which sent out a daily report for bugs
> which had not been fixed, and I think it was very helpful. A daily
> report is not appropriate here,
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 29 October 2008 15:42:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> A bi-weekly status report of the patch tracker sent to gcc-patches
>>> would definitively make the list of unreviewed patches more visible. I
>>> believe this may also be a problem for the continu
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> A bi-weekly status report of the patch tracker sent to gcc-patches
>>> would definitively make the list of unreviewed patches more visible. I
>>> believe this may also b
2008/10/29 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> I agree that the patch tracker probably does not get more patches
>> reviewed but it definitely gets less patches lost.
>
> But in the end, it didn't solve the underlying problem, so it didn't
> improve our rate of attrition of smaller contributor
"Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A bi-weekly status report of the patch tracker sent to gcc-patches
>> would definitively make the list of unreviewed patches more visible. I
>> believe this may also be a problem for the continuous builder: If
>> there is no visible feedback from it,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/29 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The patch tracker was an experiment in trying to see if it would
>> improve the rate of patches falling through the cracks.
>> It had the secondary effect of getting so
2008/10/29 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The patch tracker was an experiment in trying to see if it would
> improve the rate of patches falling through the cracks.
> It had the secondary effect of getting some other patches reviewed
> quicker in some cases, because of those who paid attentio
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/25 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I have placed a continuous builder (IE it does one build per svn
>> change) for GCC for x86_64 on an 8 core machine (nicely provided by
>> Google), and it has results
2008/10/25 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have placed a continuous builder (IE it does one build per svn
> change) for GCC for x86_64 on an 8 core machine (nicely provided by
> Google), and it has results here:
> http://home.dberlin.org:8010/waterfall
I think this is great and pretty! Wou
11 matches
Mail list logo
