Re: Bugzilla'd version of our gnats database

[Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm aware. It's trickier to handle, because the emails are just
> > *there* in the audit trail, intermixed with status changes.
> > So to avoid putting in duplicate data, you have to skip the email if we
> > just saw a status change, but otherwise, append it as a comment.
>
> Some emails are just duplicates of status change messages - but there was
> a time, when a buggy gnatsweb version failed to include gcc-gnats in the
> addresses on status change messages, when they didn't get filed twice.
> So subsequent emails can only be ignored if they are exact duplicates of a
> previous status change message.
Sigh.
This sucks.
Why couldn't they use some real standardized format, or a real database?

>
> > > What about that of Class?
> > Class is pointless, it becomes severity.
>
> It's not pointless.  doc-bug | accepts-illegal | rejects-legal |
> wrong-code | ice-on-legal-code| ice-on-illegal-code | pessimizes-code |
> sw-bug | change-request | support are meaningful divisions describing
> bugs, I don't see how they map to severities.
I meant, literally, you can change the name to severity.
Or i could do it the other way around (change severity to class, and add
these divisions back).

>