This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status of Bugzilla?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 17:26:01 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> As i've said, the lists will get the same change reports humans do.
Which lists will get what?
I'd be happy with the answer "gcc-bugs will get everything, gcc-prs will
go away" (and don't really care what goes to java-prs), since I think the
present multiple bugs lists (with a lot of duplication) are more
complicated and confusing than necessary. But if there are to be multiple
lists with different subsets, just making changes won't show what goes to
what list, only the union of what goes to all lists (or what goes to one
(Also, so far, I haven't managed to extract a password from the Bugzilla
test system; it either doesn't recognise there to be an account with my
email address, or recognises it but then doesn't recognise the password
change token it sends out.)
> Besides gcc specific fields, and whatever differences in actual bug
> process there is, there is nothing wrong with the existing bugzilla
Things about process (gnatswrite.html) are critical. Without knowing what
changes correspond to confirming a PR by changing it from "open" to
"analyzed", I can't test that, as a common sort of change in GNATS, and
know that what I'm testing will have the correct correspondence with what
is done now. I'd like to test all the common uses (gccbug submission, web
submission, email followup, email MIME followup with attachments, marking
PRs analyzed, marking them suspended, marking them feedback, closing them
as fixed, closing them as bogus, marking them as release-critical) but
don't know what the right Bugzilla actions for these things are.
Joseph S. Myers