This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bugzilla'd version of our gnats database
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:15:30 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: Bugzilla'd version of our gnats database
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Sigh.
> This sucks.
> Why couldn't they use some real standardized format, or a real database?
With GNATS, each front end does the status change messages itself, in its
own way.
> > It's not pointless. doc-bug | accepts-illegal | rejects-legal |
> > wrong-code | ice-on-legal-code| ice-on-illegal-code | pessimizes-code |
> > sw-bug | change-request | support are meaningful divisions describing
> > bugs, I don't see how they map to severities.
> I meant, literally, you can change the name to severity.
> Or i could do it the other way around (change severity to class, and add
> these divisions back).
We want something like these divisions, whatever they're called. We do
not want users submitting bugs to be asked for any form of opinion about
how important a bug is or when it should be fixed (as with present
Priority and Severity). (Though they can always provide information that
might influence our judgment about the importance of a bug, e.g. what
software the testcase came from.)
I don't think that storing further information about bug importance /
priorities, beyond target milestones and the factual descriptions of type
of bug presently in Class, is of any particular use; but if other people
want to use such fields and can provide coherent documentation for what
the different values mean in a GCC context, the inclusion of such a field
or fields (set by developers only, not at bug submission) is OK by me.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk