This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, bugzilla-masters at dberlin dot org
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:27:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312120309420.3123-100000@cancun.ices.utexas.edu>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:14:36AM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
> > Please allow gcc's bugzilla to also be used by binutils. I think it
> > makes sense to share the infrastructure as binutils and gcc are closely
> > related.
>
> I'm not quite sure whether this is a good idea. It seems to me as if the
> people presently working on bugzilla are no binutils experts, so what
> would be the benefit of having the two in the same data base? I've seen
> maybe 10 bugs (out of 13000) that turned out to be binutils bugs instead
> of gcc bugs. Why not set up a different bugzilla elsewhere? At least I'd
> like to see more convincing arguments why the two should reside in the
> same database.
Personally, I agree with Wolfgang. I don't think we'll need to move
back and forth between the DBs very often anyway.
I'm biased - I want one for GDB also, and I don't really want to
renumber all the existing GNATS PRs.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer