This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status of Bugzilla?
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>, Phil Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>, Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>, Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:06:54 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, mike stump wrote:
>> I would appreciate clarification of the GCC project's stance on this
> The way to do this, is to take a vote of all the people that make the
> heaviest use of the the bug reporting system [...]
As far as I saw, this "vote" has been relatively clear in favor of
switching to Bugzilla.
> See if anybody in power (SC) wants to veto it.
I will take care of informing the SC
> Then find someone with enough access to the gcc.gnu.org machine willing
> to `be responsible' for implementing it on the gcc.gnu.org machine and
> watching it and making it work.
Given this feedback and Daniel's committment, I'm willing to approve all
web-related changes and also help from the gcc.gnu.org machine-side.
On 7 Feb 2002, Phil Blundell wrote:
> Agreed. I think that, rather than holding Bugzilla to some idealistic
> standard of what a bug-tracking system "should" be like, we should
> concentrate on the pragmatic issue of whether it is would be a material
> improvement over what we have now.
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> - We'll have to get rid of that .GIF mozilla.org banner ;-)
Agreed. Here we have to be GNU-ishly correct, but I believe Daniel will
quickly take care of such issues, right?
Gerald "Jerry" email@example.com http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/