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: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 19:03:09 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > Filing and replying don't require a browser interface; so that doesn't
> > > invalidate my point.
> > >
> > > But those aren't typically the activities I'd want to do, which are
> > > browsing the database for bugs I might want work on. I did this once,
> > > but it was so slow, it's a major disincentive to try it again.
> > Bugzilla querying is *so much* faster than gnats it's not funny.
> I know that Bugzilla is based on a real database and thus has
> an advantage but couldn't the speed of gnats be improved?
> And is this speed differential the same with the newer gnats 4.x?
I don't have a database with gnats 4.x to compare to.
However, the changelog only contains the words fast or speed twice total,
and nothing in the news file except that you can do more powerful queries
(IE nothing about them being faster).
> Abandoning gnats for any other system seems like effort which
> could be put into optimizing gnats. gcc is not the only project
> using gnats.
Sorry, it's not just speed.
And there are a lot more installations of bugzilla these days
> I must be getting old.. I remember when people fixed free software
> rather than abandoning it. :)
We've been through this before.
> > I don't see the big deal in using a text mode browser if you don't feel
> > like firing up netscape.
> But gnats also has an email interface which breaks all requirements
> of real interactivity.
Which wasn't being used either in this case.