This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: "Volker Reichelt" <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>,"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 04:03:29 +0200
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
- References: <F0C1E02E-841C-11D7-8EDF-000A95A34564@dberlin.org>
Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
>> Because a new addition to the audit-trail doesn't mean that the
>> PR was really rechecked. Modified doesn't imply reconfirmed.
>>
> Hence the need for a boolean flag.
> I can have it auto-reset them every 30 days a bug isn't touched or
> something, if you like, as a cronjob.
> There's still no need for a full timestamp, because it knows when the
> flag was changed anyway.
It's not a boolean flag. Either a bug has been confirmed 2 day ago, 2 weeks
ago, 2 months ago or 2 years go, they're all different situations. Since
GNATS doesn't have a field for this, we're putting it into the synopsis. I
would not mind Bugzilla to have such a timestamp.
Giovanni Bajo