Le 08. 12. 15 14:16, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
>> Dropping it is ok I think.
>
> Yes, even for the valid "enhancement" cases a maintainer who triages
> the report could set that easily enough.
If maintainers still use the severity field to triage bugs, then it
should not be dropped. It would be m
Hello,
Someone played with the GCC Bugzilla git repo last week with no real reason:
Author: root
Date: Fri Oct 7 15:28:43 2016 +
snap-data
Looks like the goal was to drop all CSS and JS files in data/assets/.
Why? There is no reason to play with the data/ directory. This directory
c
Hello,
I just enabled an extension on GCC Bugzilla which automatically disables
reporter's account if their bugs are marked as INVALID and are in the
'spam' component. So if you have enough privileges on GCC Bugzilla to
close a bug as INVALID and to move it in the 'spam' component (in the
'gcc' pr
Hello,
I again disabled account creation on GCC Bugzilla due to spammers being
still very active. 117 user accounts have been created since yesterday.
102 have been identified as spammers and have been disabled. For the
remaining 15 accounts, I have no evidence that they are spammers. At
least one
I added code to GCC Bugzilla last night to collect IP addresses from
requests for new accounts. 80% - 90% of requests are coming from the
following IP ranges:
62.122.72.x - 62.122.79.x
91.229.229.x
185.2.32.x
185.44.77.x - 185.44.79.x
188.72.126.x - 188.72.127.x
188.72.96.x
193.105.154.x
194.29.18
Hello,
Could one of you give me a short and clear description of each of the
Host, Target and Build fields used in GCC Bugzilla? Currently, hovering
the field label for these fields in bug reports gives no useful
description besides the default message "A custom Free Text field in
this installatio
Le 11. 11. 14 20:11, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> At some point GCC's bugzilla started taking ages to load, because
> every single .css and .js file gets a query appended to the URL:
>
> skins/contrib/Dusk/global.css?1368269827
>
> This causes Firefox to constantly re-fetch those pages again and
>
Le 10. 04. 11 02:19, Joseph S. Myers a écrit :
> Likewise. We don't use VERIFIED and CLOSED in GCC, proper text should
> reflect the existence of only one closed state with a genuine meaning and
> not mention the others (ideally they'd be completely hidden).
That's not true. VERIFIED and CLOSED
Le 11. 04. 11 01:33, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Most of those cases are the reporter changing the status to VERIFIED
> after a gcc maintainer has set it to RESOLVED. That doesn't mean the
> maintainers use VERIFIED of that keeping it is useful.
If they are useless, then they should be removed to
Le 26. 01. 11 17:04, Frank Ch. Eigler a écrit :
Can't locate mro.pm in @INC
>
> This may be fixed now, with a hand-made dummy mro.pm file.
I think I know what's wrong. I will paste what I wrote at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675633#c2:
email_in.pl requires Email::Reply whic
Le 15. 11. 11 10:50, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> So I clicked on the attachment link, and I get the patch viewer,
> showing me a coloured, side-by-side diff. Very pretty, but no use if
> I want to download it to apply it to the GCC source.
>
> So I clicked on the "Raw Unified" link above the side
Le 15. 11. 11 13:25, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> unified link would be useful. For GCC unified diffs are the norm, so
> having an extra link to show it in that form (but not accurately) does
> seem unhelpful.
Feel free to file a bug on GCC Bugzilla, and assign it to me, so that I
can remove this
v's name who I
>>> can work with?
>>
>> I thought Frédéric Buclin (copied) is now working
>> on this? Perhaps the two of you can sync?
>>
>> Gerald
>
> Heh.. I was, too :)
Looks like several people offered their help to upgrade GCC Bugzilla,
but the
Le 07. 09. 10 18:51, NightStrike a écrit :
> Well, I've been working on it since I got the approval. I just
> haven't posted patches yet. Should I stop?
If your patches are based on Bugzilla 3.6.x, no way! :)
Could you please attach them to bug 43011?
Frédéric
Le 07. 09. 10 19:14, NightStrike a écrit :
> So for instance, instead of 2.20+ > 3.6.1, I was doing 2.20 > 2.21, etc.
Wow, iterating this way is too long (and 2.21 is a development snapshot,
not a stable release). We must jump directly from 2.20 to 3.6.2, else we
will go nowhere. The code is defin
Hi all,
A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database
(snapshot taken yesterday, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2
is now live at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken
customizations in the new "Bugzilla"
Le 10. 09. 10 12:22, Richard Guenther a écrit :
> So - can you enumerate the customizations you didn't bring over?
I have no official list of customizations to port to the newer Bugzilla.
All I have in hands are the two patches attached to bug 43011, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Hi all,
I'm done with the implementation of customizations for the 3.6.2
Bugzilla installation. The test installation, which is based on a copy
of the GCC Bugzilla database (snapshot taken on September 9), is live at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
Please test it, and file bugs related to miss
Le 21. 09. 10 01:18, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Oops, I didn't realise that changes to the test installation get
> emailed to gcc-bugs and to the users who reported the bug or are CC'd
> on it
Yeah, it's a production-ready installation, with all features enabled.
:) Only bugs filed in the Bugzill
Le 25. 09. 10 17:10, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be
> ticked by default?
Yes, because most of the time, when you comment on a bug, other users
may react to your comment, or ask for more information, etc... In that
case, it's impor
Le 28. 09. 10 11:25, Dave Korn a écrit :
> Before I start, I'd like to thank Frédéric for having done all this work and
> got us a nice shiny new bugzilla. Thank you!
Thanks again. :)
> One minor thing appears to have failed in the transition: although all my
> saved searches and whine sett
Le 28. 09. 10 11:25, Dave Korn a écrit :
> I'm no longer
> receiving my nightly emails that the whine is supposed to be sending me.
This should be fixed now. Let me know if you still don't get nightly emails.
Frédéric
Le 05. 10. 10 06:53, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> It seems that the new Bugzilla does not set a Message-ID header when
> sending mail.
You come a bit late in the game, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45818 ;)
Frédéric
Le 26. 01. 11 11:29, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> Can't locate mro.pm in @INC
mro.pm is part of the core code of Perl since version 5.9.5. So it's not
available here as sourceware has Perl 5.8.5 installed. Where is this
script located? And did you get the exact line and script which threw
this error?
Le 18. 10. 12 14:06, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Other bugzillas I've used have a big red text box that very
> prominently tells the submitted to search for existing bugs.
Do you have an example of such Bugzillas? Mozilla and RedHat have no
such big red box. KDE has something closer.
> I'd do it
Le 18. 10. 12 14:27, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> I'll prepare some mockups for people to look at and see if they like it.
Please file a bug and CC me. It's much easier to track progress in
Bugzilla than per email.
LpSolit
(Igor jumped into the Bugzilla developers IRC channel, so that's why I
heard about this thread.)
Ian said:
"I'm willing to provide you with a dump of gcc's bugzilla database if
you can give me the exact command to run."
Sorry, but I have to object! It's not ok to give anyone a plain dump of
the
27 matches
Mail list logo
