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: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, 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>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:57:07 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
> I can't speak for others but hours, minutes and seconds are most
> definitely irrelevant wrt. the "last confirmed"-field. Also it just
> isn't useful to say, "I reconfirmed this at this date" unless the
> date implies something about the snapshot/version used to reconfirm
> the bug, hence we can use and IMHO should use the date of the snapshot in
> the first place.
I think that for everyone who sets these dates, the date of the snapshot
is at most a couple of days old. Since we're not really interested in
accuracy to the second, we might just as well be a little lenient on the
exact date of the snapshot.
Let's please make it more convenient and let bugzilla choose the present
date. Otherwise, we're back to filling in numbers by hand, which I think
is stupid. All we want to know is: did anybody confirm this bug in the
last month or so.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/