This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Future of gccbug



On Nov 7, 2003, at 12:49 PM, Joe Buck wrote:


On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:39:39PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Andrew Pinski <apinski@apple.com> writes:

| On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:28 AM, Volker Reichelt wrote:
|
| > Hi,
| >
| > apart from PR 12900 we haven't had any submissions of PRs via gccbug in
| > the last couple of months (according to Daniel's statistics).
|
| One more today, PR12943, funny how things happen right after sending
| that email.


I'm not sure we should rip it out.

The SC has received complaints from RMS on our practice of deprecating
ways other than bugzilla to send bug reports. He points out that the
GNU standard says that, for any GNU tool named TOOL, one can send bugs to


gnu-TOOL@gnu.org

(in our case this forwards to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org).

We can certainly tell people that Bugzilla is preferred, but we can't cut
off ways other than Bugzilla to file bugs. There are a lot of folks
(particularly in the 3rd world) who have email access but no or limited
web access.


So, I'd like to see gccbug modernized and supported.

Feel free to modernize the incoming email handler, which is where the main maintenance burden lies.
It's not easy to parse and convert gnats reports.


if you were to change the format of gccbug to report in a format that didn't require us to convert fields (IE we had the same fields in gccbug that we do in bugzilla), it wouldn't be such a burden.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]