public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Removing GNATS categories
@ 2000-03-28  1:49 Martin v. Loewis
  2000-03-28  7:03 ` Jeffrey A Law
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Martin v. Loewis @ 2000-03-28  1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc

The current GCC GNATS installation has a number of categories that
haven't been used so far, despite the 145 reports that we already
have. I propose to remove them, before anybody uses them. The most
useless ones are

gc
host
profiling

I'd also like to ban the lib* categories, on the basis that they could
go with their front-ends

libf2c
libgcc
libobjc
libobjc
libstdc++

With the reduced list, people won't get so confused about how to file
a bug report. Just how often does it happen that somebody says she has
a problem with libgcc - it would rather come out as a problem with
exception handling, or a missing _divdi3 function.

Opinions? I'd take "no feedback" as "accepted unopposed" :-)

Regards,
Martin

P.S. This should not be taken as criticism of whoever originally
created these categories. It was a good starting point, and the change
now won't be the last time that we have to adjust the structure of
this based on actual user needs.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Removing GNATS categories
@ 2000-03-28 12:25 Mike Stump
  2000-03-28 14:33 ` Martin v. Loewis
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2000-03-28 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc, martin

> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:42:12 +0200
> From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>

> The current GCC GNATS installation has a number of categories that
> haven't been used so far, despite the 145 reports that we already
> have.

When we have 10000 there will be some use for some of them.

> I'd also like to ban the lib* categories, on the basis that they could
> go with their front-ends

> libstdc++

I think this one is big enough to leave separate, but I could be
biased.  Or put another way, g++ is too big for people that want to
just maintain the library to wade through.

> With the reduced list, people won't get so confused about how to
> file a bug report. Just how often does it happen that somebody says
> she has a problem with libgcc - it would rather come out as a
> problem with exception handling, or a missing _divdi3 function.

But, you see, there are experts that can recategorize into finer
detail.  I know that I have always wanted, and often used finer
resolution than just g++.  EH/pt/mi/rtti/vtbl and so on...  I find
such micro categories very useful.  It'd be nice for gnats to support
a subcategory, then the main one could be g++, with the minor one be
even more specific.

What to do now?  Well, we can always trim them, as it doesn't hurt (if
they are not used), and later if people using the database request it,
new categories can be created to reflect their wishes on the fly.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2000-03-30  5:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-03-28  1:49 Removing GNATS categories Martin v. Loewis
2000-03-28  7:03 ` Jeffrey A Law
2000-03-29 12:21   ` Martin v. Loewis
2000-03-29 12:55     ` Tom Tromey
2000-03-28 12:25 Mike Stump
2000-03-28 14:33 ` Martin v. Loewis
2000-03-29  3:59   ` Branko
2000-03-29 11:31     ` Martin v. Loewis
2000-03-29 22:46       ` Branko
2000-03-30  5:17         ` Branko

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).