From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4875 invoked by alias); 12 May 2003 10:59:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4787 invoked from network); 12 May 2003 10:59:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de) (134.60.66.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 May 2003 10:59:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 2202 invoked by uid 642); 12 May 2003 10:59:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20030512105903.2201.qmail@thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de> From: "Christian Ehrhardt" Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:59:00 -0000 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Giovanni Bajo , Volker Reichelt , S.Bosscher@student.tudelft.nl, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, bangerth@ices.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy References: <4a1701c31830$6673fc80$114e2697@bagio> <73E224BD-8430-11D7-8EDF-000A95A34564@dberlin.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <73E224BD-8430-11D7-8EDF-000A95A34564@dberlin.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01097.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 12:16:06AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > >We confirm each bug many times, and every time we bump the date field. > >How > >are we supposed to do this in Bugzilla? > > > That's the easy (for me) way: > You can unset-reset the flag. How am I supposed to store the fact that I reconfirmed a bug with a two day old cvs-Snapshot? Also unsetting and resetting a flag to achieve this is just plain ugly. This information is just fundamentally NOT a flag. Actually it is not even a timestamp of some bugzilla action, it is the date of a CVS-Snapshot. And it is IMHO much less important to be able to compare these fields, they are mainly there for human inspection. > It records *every* time the flag was set, not just the first time. > It's trivial to query for all bugs where the flag has not been set in > the past x days. Again, if we can query for the field in questions, that's nice, but its much more important IMHO that this information is visible in the result of a query. > I just need to know *what* type of query you want to do on this flag, > so i can make it appear on the query form for you (for your > convenience, since you can constructs queries the hard way using the > boolean charts). Being able to do text queries would suffice. The imporant thing is, that this information is visible in the result of a query. > >>Please put it somewhere else, since > >> > >>2. I can't remove it during conversion easily, and it'll uglify > >>reading > >>bug lists since some bugs have them, and others don't. Adding it to > >>the > >>front will also cause it to truncate some of the actual description. > >>Already we have crap like: > >>"[2003-05-03] [diagnostic] Bug in template type in error m..." > >> > >>Showing up in queries. That's exactly why we put it into the synopsis: It SHOULD show up in queries at least if I request this when doing a query. If conversion is a problem, I hereby volunteer to extract a list containing PR number and desired contents of the "last-confirmed" field for all open PRs at the time of the switch over to bugzilla. This way you'd only have to feed this to an SQL-query once. regards Christian -- THAT'S ALL FOLKS!