This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status of Bugzilla?
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>
- To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:05:39 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> There was some discussion earlier on this mailing list
> about the GCC project switching from GNATS to Bugzilla.
> Daniel Berlin has done a lot of hard work to test things
> out, and see if it is a viable solution. I am very supportive
> of Daniel's efforts. As someone who has dealt with probably
> hundreds of GCC problem reports in GNATS, I can see the
> limitations of GNATS. I have used Bugzilla on a few
> other instances (the TAO ORB, Red Hat, Mozilla) and to me, it appears to be
> much easier to work with , and in my opinion, does a better
> job than GNATS.
> I think that having a better issues tracking system like
> Bugzilla would help the GCC project greatly.
> Does the GCC Steering Committee care one way or the other about this issue?
> I did not see any definitive answers to Daniel's query:
The reason i haven't given a status update in a bit is because the bug
database is working just fine now. IE the import script works just fine,
it does everything everyone seems to want it to, etc.
The email interface can accept gccbug input, it's error handling needs a
bit of work (IE it just ignores most errors, rather than emailing the user
back telling them what was malformed), but it will take valid gccbug
input, and reply with a new bug number, etc.
I've taken care of almost every request, except niggling little thigns
that haven't been decided like priority/severity levels and whatnot.
I figured i'd give another status update when 2.16 is out, since it's been
coming in in pieces.