Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
Cc: gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Bugzilla spring cleaning
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:17:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53107055.5020000@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADPb22RUnsVECKkvu19dvMDnc1xPS6hsR=XQyZdXFw-q6z38uQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/27/2014 06:11 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> There's a few cleanups I've wanted to see happen on our Bugzilla site.
> 
> The ones that are currently on my mind are these:
> 
> 1) Remove old entries from the "Versions" list.
> 
> Do we really need 3.x and 4.x here?
> Personally, I can see deleting 5.x too, and replacing all of them with
> a "catch-all" field for old releases.
> [I can also see deleting 6.x, but "baby steps" ...]

What's the actual problem this is trying to solve?

> 
> I can imagine their appearance in some old bug making it
> hard/impossible to accomplish this, but I won't know unless I ask.

If there are bugs filed against those versions, then I don't
see the point in removing them.  My first reaction would be to
object.  I see no upside in simply dropping history of old GDBs.

But I don't really know what is the oldest GDB that does have
bugs filed against.  If indeed there's no bug filed for
those old versions, then I'll definitely agree with removing them.

Closing bugs filed against old releases that have had no
input for quite a long time would be a different discussion.
But it's not clear to me whether that's what you're proposing.

> 1b) IWBN to reverse-sort the Versions list.

I agree this is one would indeed be very nice.  It's quite
likely we have bugs erroneously reported against old versions
simply because of this issue.  Bugs converted from the old
gnats (which I believe is the majority of filed bugs) fortunately
have the "Release" field in the description text, so we
could fix any in that situation.  Furthermore, it seems to me
that doing this pretty much would make the issue of eliminating
old versions practically moot?

> 2) The "Target Milestone" list could also use some trimming.

Offhand, same as above.

-- 
Pedro Alves


  reply	other threads:[~2014-02-28 11:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-02-27 18:11 Doug Evans
2014-02-28 11:17 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2014-02-28 17:15   ` Doug Evans
2014-02-28 19:57     ` Pedro Alves
2014-02-28 11:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-02-28 17:31   ` Doug Evans

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53107055.5020000@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=dje@google.com \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox