bugzilla for glibc: no more glibcbug?

bugzilla for glibc: no more glibcbug?

[Roland McGrath]

We are more or less ready to go with bugzilla for glibc bugs.  That is,
either more or less ready depending on what the criteria for "ready" are.
What is not available is a way to submit new bugzilla reports via email.
(There is, however, support for adding comments to bugs via email, and
retrieving bug information via email.)  This means that the `glibcbug'
script as we have had it before cannot work.  Instead, we would replace the
various things saying to use glibcbug or bug-glibc with a URL for a web page.
Do people have a problem with this?

I'm told that for GCC bugzilla, almost no reports are submitted via email
and people don't mind using the web interface.  I imagine we can expect the
same response from glibc users as from GCC users.  It's possible we could
support email parsing for submitting reports, both to have a new
email-based glibc script, and to support uses of old glibc scripts sending
to the existing email aliases.  But to do that would require Daniel Berlin
doing some hacking on the filter code for us out of the kindness of his
heart, or someone volunteering to help him do it.  So I don't consider lack
of email submission and loss of `glibcbug' an impediment unless people here
object.  The reason I figure people won't object to abandoning the existing
bug reporting mechanisms entirely is that they have been completely useless
for many months, i.e. we have already abandoned them and not been
complaining at each other about it very much.

For the same reason I am guessing that people don't strongly feel that the
old gnats PRs need to be migrated.  This too might well be doable, though I
have yet to ascertain if the gnats.gnu.org database can even be retrieved
(nor heard in a long time from anyone who would know).  But again, it has
been a black hole for months.  Nearly everything in it must surely be very
out of date.  Moreover, everyone has been getting along without it.  

Since all we have now is a black hole, relative to that I see an
unequivocal improvement in going to a fresh clean slate.

Comments?


Thanks,
Roland

Re: bugzilla for glibc: no more glibcbug?

[Ulrich Drepper]

Roland McGrath wrote:

> Since all we have now is a black hole, relative to that I see an
> unequivocal improvement in going to a fresh clean slate.

Yes, that's fine.  The first person who complains gets the honor of
implementing and maintaining the script to file bugs without a browser.
 And the old bugs are, well, old.  Before the final demise I looked
through the database and haven't seen anything particularly interesting
or urgent in there.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

Re: bugzilla for glibc: no more glibcbug?

[Roland McGrath]

> Yes, that's fine.  The first person who complains gets the honor of
> implementing and maintaining the script to file bugs without a browser.
>  And the old bugs are, well, old.  Before the final demise I looked
> through the database and haven't seen anything particularly interesting
> or urgent in there.

Ok, great.  Daniel indicated he might work on conversion scripts, but I am
certainly happier being able to tell him there is no call for it.


Thanks,
Roland