This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [www-patch] bugs/management.html: document new keyword "meta-bug"
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:29:23 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs/management.html: document new keyword "meta-bug"
- References: <200310132342.h9DNgKsV016490@relay.rwth-aachen.de>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> Index: management.html
> ===================================================================
> +<p><strong>Meta-bugs (reports with the keyword "meta-bug")</strong> are
> +used to group PR's that have a common denominator. Meta-bugs do not have
> +own testcases, but provide links to regular PR's via Bugzilla's "depends
> +on/blocks" mechanism instead
"testcases of their own"?
And I recall that I recently read an essay (actually, a rant) that one
should use PRs, not PR's (in a different context and with a different
noun, though).
> + (a link to a regular PR is added via
> +"depends on <em>PR-number</em>" on the Bugzilla page of the meta-bug).
Perhaps omit this to keep the page a bit shorter? (I'm not a Bugzilla
expert, but even for me this bit was evident when I first saw it on the
web page. <g>)
Looks fine, thanks!
Gerald
--
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/