From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10179 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2014 11:17:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10166 invoked by uid 89); 28 Feb 2014 11:17:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:17:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1SBHjxU002214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:17:45 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1SBHfaR021584; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:17:42 -0500 Message-ID: <53107055.5020000@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:17:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb Subject: Re: Bugzilla spring cleaning References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 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