From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5618 invoked by alias); 13 May 2003 14:39:06 -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 5514 invoked from network); 13 May 2003 14:39:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2003 14:39:05 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (account dberlin HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b6) with ESMTP-TLS id 3954602; Tue, 13 May 2003 10:38:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:39:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Suggested Bugzilla improvements Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Volker Reichelt , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, bangerth@ices.utexas.edu, giovannibajo@libero.it To: "Joseph S. Myers" From: Daniel Berlin In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <937082FC-8550-11D7-9ECC-000A95A34564@dberlin.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01306.txt.bz2 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