Re: Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 3:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> 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.

Let's start with a question sure to be non-controversial: What the heck 
do i call it now that it's not just "GCC bugzilla" anymore.

IE instead of "GCC Bugzilla Main Page
?

This is GCC Bugzilla, the GCC bug tracking system."

what should it now say.


Please also note that all urls it puts in emails and whatnot will be 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/<something>


There's only one urlbase, regardless of product, so unless we use one 
of gcc.gnu.org's other aliases, that's what the urls will be printed 
as.


(If i change the urlbase, it also invalidates all existing cookies, 
which people are using to change default columns listed on queries, 
etc).