Steering committee request regarding gcc's bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 3:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> 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.
>
> Well, elsewhere would most probably mean on the same box.  binutils and
> glibc CVS is on the same box as gcc CVS.
>
> If we have 3 or 4 different databases (gcc, binutils, glibc, gdb?), 
> then
> I think it will mean more maintenance than sharing the same, just using
> different components.
>

Let's start with a question sure to be non-controversial: What the heck 
do i call it now that it's not just "GCC bugzilla" anymore.

IE instead of "GCC Bugzilla Main Page
 

This is GCC Bugzilla, the GCC bug tracking system."

what should it now say.


Please also note that all urls it puts in emails and whatnot will be 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/<something>


There's only one urlbase, regardless of product, so unless we use one 
of gcc.gnu.org's other aliases, that's what the urls will be printed 
as.


(If i change the urlbase, it also invalidates all existing cookies, 
which people are using to change default columns listed on queries, 
etc).