* Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-05-23 10:32 Richard Earnshaw
2003-05-23 14:15 ` Jason Thorpe
2003-05-23 20:01 ` Neil Booth
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2003-05-23 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Richard.Earnshaw
I'd like to suggest that gcc-bugs be used only for NEW reports being
entered into bugzilla, and that some other list (maybe the currently
defunct gcc-prs) be used for all audit-trail mailings and follow-ups.
The problem we had in the past was that gcc-bugs and gcc-prs overlapped by
about 95%, which meant that both lists were practically useless. Keeping
gcc-bugs as a repository for new reports only would enable developers to
easily spot new bug reports coming in without having to wade through piles
of junk.
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 10:32 Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Richard Earnshaw
@ 2003-05-23 14:15 ` Jason Thorpe
2003-05-23 14:59 ` Andrew Pinski
2003-05-23 20:01 ` Neil Booth
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Thorpe @ 2003-05-23 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard.Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that gcc-bugs be used only for NEW reports being
> entered into bugzilla, and that some other list (maybe the currently
> defunct gcc-prs) be used for all audit-trail mailings and follow-ups.
I think this is a great idea. It would certainly help me keep up with
it.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 14:15 ` Jason Thorpe
@ 2003-05-23 14:59 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2003-05-23 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Thorpe; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Richard.Earnshaw, gcc
Think it should be the opposite as it was under GNAT.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:59 US/Eastern, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> I'd like to suggest that gcc-bugs be used only for NEW reports being
>> entered into bugzilla, and that some other list (maybe the currently
>> defunct gcc-prs) be used for all audit-trail mailings and follow-ups.
>
> I think this is a great idea. It would certainly help me keep up with
> it.
>
> -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
2003-05-23 10:32 Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Richard Earnshaw
2003-05-23 14:15 ` Jason Thorpe
@ 2003-05-23 20:01 ` Neil Booth
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Neil Booth @ 2003-05-23 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard.Earnshaw; +Cc: gcc
Richard Earnshaw wrote:-
> I'd like to suggest that gcc-bugs be used only for NEW reports being
> entered into bugzilla, and that some other list (maybe the currently
> defunct gcc-prs) be used for all audit-trail mailings and follow-ups.
I'd like to see bugs that are closed too (in the GNATS sense).
Neil.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-23 20:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-23 10:32 Bugzilla and gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Richard Earnshaw
2003-05-23 14:15 ` Jason Thorpe
2003-05-23 14:59 ` Andrew Pinski
2003-05-23 20:01 ` Neil Booth
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).