https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #49 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #47)
> Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
> after every quoted comment.
This problem has been reported upstream, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #48 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #47)
> Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
> after every quoted comment.
>
> For example:
>
> > test
> reply
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #47 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
after every quoted comment.
For example:
> test
reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #46 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
> I can add a workaround in Bugzilla itself, if that helps. Frank?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #45 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #44)
> Any update on the timestamp issue? It still happens regularly.
I reported to overseers that the problem was not in Bugzilla, per comment 34,
but I don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #44 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Any update on the timestamp issue? It still happens regularly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35409|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #42 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #41)
> The GCC bugzilla favicon now shows generic Bugzilla favicon. Previously, it
> was a GCC favicon.
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #41 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The GCC bugzilla favicon now shows generic Bugzilla favicon. Previously, it was
a GCC favicon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #40 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks for the quick fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #39 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Bug fixed upstream, and here. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #38 from Frédéric Buclin ---
I can confirm the regression. I reported this issue upstream:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1162914
Thanks Markus for catching that! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #37 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #36)
> mpolacek isn't a valid bugzilla user by itself. You always need to type the
> whole email, or wait for the completion to appear and select it.
Yes when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #36 from Andreas Schwab ---
mpolacek isn't a valid bugzilla user by itself. You always need to type the
whole email, or wait for the completion to appear and select it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #35 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
CCing people doesn't work anymore.
For example on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066
when I click edit in the CC List, and add "mpolacek" and then hit
save changes immediately. On the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #34 from Frédéric Buclin ---
My debug code caught the problem. In one of the last bugmails, I got:
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 14:56:33 +
X-Bugzilla-Debug-Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 14:56:33 +
X-Bugzilla-Debug-DeltaTS: 2015-05-03 20:2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #33 from Frédéric Buclin ---
I found only one user account which uses the Asia/Kolkata timezone. But no
reason why this would interact with the local timezone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #32 from Frédéric Buclin ---
For some reason, DateTime::TimeZone->new(name => 'local') sometimes returns
Asia/Kolkata, which explains the -05:30 offset observed in the famous 2% of
bugmails with an incorrect timestamp. I added extra d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #31 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(ignore this one as well)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #30 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(I added some debug code to Bugzilla to try to understand what's wrong. Just
ignore this email.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #29 from Frédéric Buclin ---
One more, at :45:
Matt Breedlove 2015-04-30 20:45:32 UTC
I now have no doubt that this is not a coincidence.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #28 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Maybe is this a coincidence, but all bugmails I found which have a wrong
timestamp have something in common. First of all, the offset is *always* the
same: -05:30. Then, it seems the problem only happens w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #27 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de"
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #26 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "christian.eggers at kathrein dot de"
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #25 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Did this problem disappear? Or are there still some bugmails today with a wrong
timestamp?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #23)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
> > No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails that
> > bugzilla automati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #23 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
> No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails that
> bugzilla automatically sends to the bug mailing lists on every new comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #21)
> Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19?
> If yes, which ones did you select?
No. But the question makes no sense, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #21 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19? If
yes, which ones did you select?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
I don't think this has anything to do with the timezone of the commenter. For
example the mail for comment #19 has the date "Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:28:19 +"
(which is correct), but comment #18 was sent wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #19 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See for example:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.binutils.bugs/19841/focus=19855
When this thread is displayed in mutt the highlighted messages appears
in the wrong place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
One thing I've noticed is that the emails to gcc-bugs now use the local time
of the user. So the sorting isn't correct anymore if people from different
time zones comment.
(The same issue also happens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #17 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Patch applied. Mikael, the next time you upload a f90 script, Bugzilla will
correctly detect it as text/plain. Note that it won't convert the MIME type of
already uploaded attachments (which you can manual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35353|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #14)
> That's unrelated to the upgrade. Your web browser is unable to display files
> of type text/x-fortran, that's why.
>
> What you want is https://bugzilla.mozil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #14 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> Hello, not sure this is due to the upgrade, but the attachment
> appears empty in the page:
That's unrelated to the upgrade. Your web browser is unable to dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #13 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> Hello, not sure this is due to the upgrade, but the attachment
> appears empty in the page:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35405&action=edit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35354|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #9 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Created attachment 35354
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35354&action=edit
GCC extension for 5.0, v2
And the corresponding new extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34735|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Created attachment 34736
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34736&action=edit
GCC extension for 5.0, v1
This is exactly the same GCC extension as for 4.4.5. So far, it seems to work
fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Created attachment 34735
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34735&action=edit
GCC patch for 5.0, v1
No code changes compared to 4.4, but the patch for 4.4 didn't apply cleanly to
5.0 due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #5 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
The current .git repos are there as a backup.
I'll move them out of the way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Bugzilla 5.0 is not available from bzr, it requires git. But there is already a
.git repository in the root bugzilla/ directory, which requires root
permissions to be read. What is git used for currently?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #3 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
If the spammer problem is brought under better control with bz5, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
49 matches
Mail list logo
