This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Status of Bugzilla?

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:25:28AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I'd like to see the attachments going direct to the lists - so simply 
> reading through gcc-bugs (maybe even offline) will show all the bug 
> reports and comments on them, in a self-contained form that is 
> comprehensible without needing external online resources.  A size limit 
> here would make sense, something like:
> * Attachments under 100k, just send uncompressed as text/whatever.
> * Larger attachments under 200k when compressed, send compressed.
> * Even larger ones, send URL.

OK, now you are starting to ask for features which are not
even in the existing GNATS system, and you are making
Daniel jump through hoops.

Do you speak for the GCC Steering Committee regarding these
requirements?  If Daniel does not implement these features,
will this block Bugzilla from being adopted by the
GCC Project?

> If a bug report isn't self-contained and immediately readable (at present,
> including a gnatsweb attachment at all means it isn't immediately
> readable, since they aren't sent as MIME) I'm less likely to consider on
> seeing the bug report (rather than months later looking through the bug
> tracking system) whether it is of interest to attempt a fix to, or
> familiar, etc..

Well, that's you.  I'd like to hear commentary from other
users of the GCC GNATS system.  I am perfectly comfortable using a 
Web-only interface for viewing problem reports.  It is very useful to see 
the audit-trail on a bug in one easy-to-use interface.  It is very nice to be
able to do searchable queries on the bug database to see if
it is a duplicate of another bug.  If Bugzilla was implemented, I feel
that my productivity and ability to serve the customer base of gcc would
be improved.  Other people may disagree with me and have their own
preferences, but that's what I am comfortable with.

My opinion is that if an end-user, a "customer", of GCC took the
time out of their life to fill out a bug report, then it is
important and worthy of attention, and that the FSF GCC project
should have this attitude towards its "customers".  Granted,
most of us are volunteers who are not paid to work on GCC, so
we will never be able to approach the level of service of
a professional customer support organization.  However,
we should do our best, and use whatever appropriate tools
help us do this job.

> Somewhere there must be the manual step to approve the specific people who
> get access to edit bugs.  (Which should be scriptable for approving
> multiple people etc..)  It needs to be done if/when Bugzilla would be set
> up to replace GNATS, for all people with write access to GNATS, and it
> needs to be done from time to time later, for people approved by the SC,
> from whatever mechanism lies behind the new account form.

I think you need to spend some time using Bugzilla to understand how
it works.  The things you are asking for, I have not found necessary
in other production systems which are using Bugzilla.

Craig Rodrigues          

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]