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: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:45:51 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > Do changes to bug categories, priorities, milestones, etc., all generate
> > > messages to the list/lists?
> > Yes, if you have that set in your preferences.
> What's this to do with individual preferences?
I thought you had written user/lists, my bad.
> They can reasonably
> determine whether bug submitters get these messages - but for whether the
> messages go to the lists, there should be a global configuration, nothing
> to do with any individual's preferences or single bug's configuration.
> Do the audit trail messages to the lists show both the old and new field
> values, e.g. "milestone changed from 3.2 to 3.3"?
They show a diff of the fields, actually.
-<what it was before>
+<what it is now>
> > > Do new attachments (and attachments in newly submitted bug reports with
> > > the web interface) get mailed to the lists (as proper MIME attachments),
> > > as they should?
> > A URL to them gets mailed, rather than sending possibly huge attachments
> > to everyone.
> > The URL is direct (IE it takes you to that attachment, rather than the
> > bug)
> 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.
> 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..
Whether this is true for you, doesn't make it true for other people.
Thus, it should be a user preference, not the rule.
I'll add it.
> > Anyone can submit or view. People can edit bugs they've submitted or
> > are assigned, and only those,
> Edit in what ways? Adding attachments is something reasonable for
> submitters to do, most other changes aren't.
Edit as if they owned it, but this can be changed.
> > > Clearly for a production system, the accounts with GNATS write access
> > > would map directly to corresponding access for the corresponding accounts
> > > (only) in Bugzilla, though not necessarily preserving the GNATS
> > > passwords.)
> > People need accounts to submit bugs (but accounts also let you do things
> > like save your own set of queries, etc), but it takes 5 seconds to setup
> > in the web interface, and emailing in bug report will auto-create an
> > account for you if necessary, and mail yo uback the password.
> 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..)
There is, of course.
> 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.
Um, of course you can do this, what would make you think you couldn't?