Suggested Bugzilla improvements

[Daniel Berlin]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 06:17  AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
>
>> * Version: By now, one can only select one version. The bugs, however,
>>   usually appear in more than one compiler version.
>>   Would it be possible to change that into a text field or to rename 
>> it
>>   into "Initial version"? Or are there better suggestions?
>
> We have at present a full version number field (with date), which is
> converted into the version number only field (for searching) and the 
> full
> version number inserted in the text (so we can tell which of the very 
> wide
> range of compilers calling themselves "3.3" the bug was reported 
> against).
> But tracking which set of versions a bug applies in seems to be a
> difficult problem for bug tracking systems in general.
>
Correct.

> Also, what's happened to the various minor versions that were in the
> version list?  We did have 2.95.[1234], 3.0.[12345], 3.2.[123] 
> included as
> possible short version numbers - and there is documentation in
> releasing.html / branching.html of when and how to add new numbers when
> releasing and branching - but they are no longer available,
This is my fault, it's checking them in the wrong order, so it checks 
for 2.95 before 2.95.3, etc.

>  although the
> minor versions 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are.
>
> Didn't someone request that the keywords with legal/illegal in them 
> should
> be changed to use the GNUically correct terminology valid/invalid as 
> part
> of the conversion?

Nope.

>
> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers
> jsm28@cam.ac.uk