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: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:42:31 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:58:26PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > I don't recall you ever filing, closing or replying to a GNATS report.
> > >
> > > Right. And the fact that it's a web interface is one of the reasons for that!
> > > Which is my point.
> > Huh? I use email to do everything except the 'closing' part, and for that
> And a nice feature to have (not a blocker) would be if the system where
> CVS log messages can specify PRs and get the log message appended to them
> (only one PR per log message, at present) were extended so that multiple
> bugs could be specified, and a subset of them closed (the rest just
> getting the log message appended). Since when you're fixing a bug by
> committing a patch to fix it, it should suffice to commit the patch
> without needing separate closing by either web or mail. I suppose this
> could be done by making log_accum talk the Bugzilla XML email interface?
You could hook up a commit script that talks with the bugzilla database
> (Note that patches can be committed that only partially address a bug, so
> there would need to be clearly documented syntax for both closing a bug
> and just appending a CVS log message to a bug.)