From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: where to send patches Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87y652bt1a.fsf@gmx.at> <6goc5kcbu4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299724000 19072 80.91.229.12 (10 Mar 2011 02:26:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Rottmann , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 10 03:26:35 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PxVaE-0003u0-T1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:26:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57065 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxVaE-0006Qj-9Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:26:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37867 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxVa9-0006Qb-D5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:26:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxVa8-0004ov-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:26:29 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:35765 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxVa8-0004oq-8p; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:26:28 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAMPFd03O+LEt/2dsb2JhbACnAHjDJIVlBIUikAY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,293,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="95418840" Original-Received: from 206-248-177-45.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.177.45]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 21DCD66135; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <6goc5kcbu4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (Glenn Morris's message of "Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:50:43 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:137012 Archived-At: >> Agreed. It occurred to me that we could even tweak M-x report-emacs-bug >> so that it notices when the report includes something that looks like >> a patch, and adds the corresponding debbugs tag. > People like to use this damn [PATCH] convention, so some time ago I > tweaked debbugs.gnu.org to recognize that in the same way as "Tags: > patch". That's good, but I think we should try and recognize the patch itself as well, since many people don't put any [PATCH] in the subject either. > I did think about adding "Severity: normal" to the M-x report-emacs-bug > boilerplate, and inviting people to adjust it if they wished. But maybe > it makes reporting more complicated for little gain? Indeed, I think the gain would be very small. Especially since it's not obvious for the reporter to know what other severities are valid. Stefan