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: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, 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 12:59:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
- References: <4a1701c31830$6673fc80$114e2697@bagio> <73E224BD-8430-11D7-8EDF-000A95A34564@dberlin.org>
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:16:06AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >We confirm each bug many times, and every time we bump the date field.
> >How
> >are we supposed to do this in Bugzilla?
>
>
> That's the easy (for me) way:
> You can unset-reset the flag.
How am I supposed to store the fact that I reconfirmed a bug with a
two day old cvs-Snapshot? Also unsetting and resetting a flag
to achieve this is just plain ugly. This information is just fundamentally
NOT a flag. Actually it is not even a timestamp of some bugzilla action,
it is the date of a CVS-Snapshot. And it is IMHO much less
important to be able to compare these fields, they are mainly there
for human inspection.
> It records *every* time the flag was set, not just the first time.
> It's trivial to query for all bugs where the flag has not been set in
> the past x days.
Again, if we can query for the field in questions, that's nice, but
its much more important IMHO that this information is visible in the
result of a query.
> I just need to know *what* type of query you want to do on this flag,
> so i can make it appear on the query form for you (for your
> convenience, since you can constructs queries the hard way using the
> boolean charts).
Being able to do text queries would suffice. The imporant thing is, that
this information is visible in the result of a query.
> >>Please put it somewhere else, since
> >>
> >>2. I can't remove it during conversion easily, and it'll uglify
> >>reading
> >>bug lists since some bugs have them, and others don't. Adding it to
> >>the
> >>front will also cause it to truncate some of the actual description.
> >>Already we have crap like:
> >>"[2003-05-03] [diagnostic] Bug in template type in error m..."
> >>
> >>Showing up in queries.
That's exactly why we put it into the synopsis: It SHOULD show up in queries
at least if I request this when doing a query.
If conversion is a problem, I hereby volunteer to extract a list containing
PR number and desired contents of the "last-confirmed" field for all open
PRs at the time of the switch over to bugzilla. This way you'd only have
to feed this to an SQL-query once.
regards Christian
--
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!