Re: Decision on gccbug?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 9:08 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:

> Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> writes:
>
> > think were reasonable given the typical length and style of a
> > PR. But people were quite set on this and I gave up when I became
> > frustrated. If you ask me: nuke it.
>
> I think my point was missed.
>
> In the same way that we don't simply remove target support without
> warning users for a release or two, I think it would be poor form to
> simply nuke gccbug.

I might agree if it was still possibly being used, but unlike targets, 
where we can only really guess at use (and thus risk actually screwing 
someone over), we *know* gccbug isn't being used, because we aren't 
getting reports using it!

>  At least one release should be made with a
> version of gccbug that explains that it is no longer in use and that
> users should file bug reports into Bugzilla.
If you really think this is necessary, go for it.

> If necessary, I volunteer to write such a version of gccbug.
>
> Cheers, Ben