This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, bugzilla-masters at dberlin dot org
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:33:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312120309420.3123-100000@cancun.ices.utexas.edu>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:14:36AM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
> > Please allow gcc's bugzilla to also be used by binutils. I think it
> > makes sense to share the infrastructure as binutils and gcc are closely
> > related.
>
> I'm not quite sure whether this is a good idea. It seems to me as if the
> people presently working on bugzilla are no binutils experts, so what
> would be the benefit of having the two in the same data base? I've seen
> maybe 10 bugs (out of 13000) that turned out to be binutils bugs instead
> of gcc bugs. Why not set up a different bugzilla elsewhere? At least I'd
> like to see more convincing arguments why the two should reside in the
> same database.
Well, elsewhere would most probably mean on the same box. binutils and
glibc CVS is on the same box as gcc CVS.
If we have 3 or 4 different databases (gcc, binutils, glibc, gdb?), then
I think it will mean more maintenance than sharing the same, just using
different components.
Jakub