http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 4.2 |Upgrade GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56063
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-01-21
12:20:04 UTC ---
You are free to type the date yourself instead of using the calendar if you
already know the exact date. The calendar is more helpful to people who
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56063
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-01-21
22:20:33 UTC ---
What I could do is to hide the calendar button and add a Now link instead.
I'm not sure that having both the calendar button and a Now link would be
nice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-01-22
21:24:25 UTC ---
It would be simpler to simply type r1234 in Bugzilla instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/r1234 and have it linkified to point to
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56063
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56063
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45911
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-08-14
18:58:00 UTC ---
Another reason why I cannot simply download the 4.2 tarball and install it till
bzr is available: Bugzilla 4.2 requires MySQL 5.0.15, but the version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #10 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-08-14
19:01:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I don't know if anything was changed, but the speed seems OK now
It seems very slow to me. It took a while to send 3 bugmails
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-10-18
12:51:28 UTC ---
If you attach a mockup, I can easily write the corresponding code.
This new big notice should only be visible to users with no privileges, right?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-10-18
13:37:50 UTC ---
If everybody is happy with this mockup, I can push it live later today. Does it
need any formal approval?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56233
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10
13:54:22 UTC ---
Perhaps you could add an entry to the FAQ: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ so when
people google for the error, they understand what the problem is. The FAQ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49049
--- Comment #11 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 06:58:33 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 06:58:25 2012
New Revision: 188327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188327
Log:
Backport mainline r179607,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49641
--- Comment #10 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 06:58:32 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 06:58:25 2012
New Revision: 188327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188327
Log:
Backport mainline r179607,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51034
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12
21:16:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 12 21:16:20 2012
New Revision: 188483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188483
Log:
PR c/53532
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-04
08:43:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 4 08:43:23 2012
New Revision: 188167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188167
Log:
2012-06-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52097
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-04
08:43:32 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 4 08:43:23 2012
New Revision: 188167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188167
Log:
2012-06-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53196
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12
21:16:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 12 21:16:20 2012
New Revision: 188483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188483
Log:
PR c/53532
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-20
07:22:13 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 20 07:22:07 2012
New Revision: 188811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188811
Log:
2012-06-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53500
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53532
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12
21:16:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 12 21:16:20 2012
New Revision: 188483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188483
Log:
PR c/53532
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-04 08:03:18 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Sep 4 08:03:09 2012
New Revision: 190910
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190910
Log:
2012-09-04 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-04-18
16:19:51 UTC ---
I saw that the OS has finally been upgraded to RHEL6. This means that it's now
possible to upgrade to Bugzilla 4.4. I won't have time this month
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55933
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|gerald at pfeifer dot com |LpSolit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-05-08
11:43:08 UTC ---
I plan to upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 4.4 this week. Is there any objection or
anything else that I should be aware of before doing the upgrade?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #8 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-05-08
12:49:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Any chance we can take the occasion to restore the svn - Bugzilla link, where
the former automatically sends the commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #10 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-05-09
00:13:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 30065
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30065
GCC patch for 4.4, v1
Here is the updated patch to work with GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #11 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-05-09
00:17:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 30066
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30066
GCC extension for 4.4, v1
And the GCC extension itself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #12 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2013-05-09
00:20:01 UTC ---
Note that I didn't include the fix from
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=571533 yet as I first want to make
sure that this fix is still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30066|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30071|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30072|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #18 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #17)
the Keywords field auto-completes when editing an existing bug, but not in
the form to create a new bug. I seem to remember
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #19 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #17)
the Keywords field auto-completes when editing an existing bug, but not in
the form to create a new bug. I seem to remember
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
--- Comment #11 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
What's the max value of a register name? r31?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55237
--- Comment #14 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
On the other hand, you are free to not click on a register name which is
linkified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52239
--- Comment #21 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #20)
Since the update, the Bugzilla favicon is shown,
before the GCC one was shown:
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:04:57 UTC ---
I did no changes to the Bugzilla code for almost two months, so I guess the
problem is external to Bugzilla. Based on duplicated comments in emails, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:06:57 UTC ---
Wow, Bugzilla is indeed very slow, even when sending two emails only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:36:20 UTC ---
fche told me on IRC that jobqueue has been disabled two weeks ago, which is
exactly when the slowness started to appear. So it may still be mail-related
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:46:26 UTC ---
He just told me that the checks for outgoing emails take between 2 and 10
seconds *per email*! I think we found the culprit. Either the scan must
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
12:03:19 UTC ---
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam, which is
why these spam checks are enabled for outgoing emails. So to mitigate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.* |x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61794
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61840
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61845
Bug ID: 61845
Summary: Minor build warnings for gcc-4.9.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62521
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62523
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62339
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62339
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62665
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62667
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45769
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: LpSolit at netscape dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #4 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 19:51 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
This is not fixable.
This is fixable, and is actually fixed in Bugzilla 3.4!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38475
--- Comment #2 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 19:58 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I cannot find the emails saying why this has not been done yet but I remember
the issue comes down to custom fields which need to be moved correctly over to
the new version of bugzilla
--- Comment #4 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 20:22 ---
Hey Daniel, still need some help? :)
--
LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 20:45 ---
Hard to see all the changes made to 2.20 via CVS. Is there a patch somewhere
done against vanilla Bugzilla showing all the customizations which have been
done?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #10 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 21:44 ---
Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader Perl
module? It's way easier to read patches this way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #12 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-09 22:11 ---
The changes in the core code do not look too terrific and should be easy to
port (some of which are now useless in the 3.4 code). I guess most changes in
contrib/bug_email.pl can go away now that we have email_in.pl
--- Comment #14 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-10 00:29 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Email replies get
body and attachments automatically entered in the relevant bug, with an
account created for the sender if they didn't already have one. If you
preserve that, most
--- Comment #16 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-10 19:48 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
No such check for adding comments from email replies, but adding a comment
doesn't require privileges (and the password for an autocreated account is
of course sent to the email address
--- Comment #7 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-10 20:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
We should really upgrade bugzilla to version 3.0
bug 43011. :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36739
--- Comment #18 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
It would be really great if someone would update the sourceware.org
bugzilla at the same time, so we could run a single version on the machine.
Wow, http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ runs
--- Comment #20 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 20:58 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
years to decide on custom fields ;)
No comment! :-D
THe main changes in both bugzilla is to remove the opsys
--- Comment #21 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 21:03 ---
About merging both Bugzilla installations into a single one, the problem is
about bug IDs. They would conflict.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43011
--- Comment #23 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-11 21:08 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.
That's doable, see
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/multiple-bz-dbs.html.
Can someone confirm this bug
--- Comment #24 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-03-30 09:54 ---
We are very close from releasing Bugzilla 3.6:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=554523
The plan is to release it next week. So you may as well upgrade to 3.6
directly. Note that I'm on vacation this week
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to |Upgrade GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-08-09
01:47:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 24954
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24954
GCC 4.0.2 patch, v1
Here is the patch which must be applied to the core
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-08-09
01:48:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 24955
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24955
GCC extension for 4.0.2, v1
And here is the GCC extension updated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24954|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24955|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49935
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48924
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48924
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46361
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-09-28
18:28:31 UTC ---
I just enabled Bugzilla debug mode, and the relevant error is:
undef error - Insecure dependency in parameter 3 of
DBI::db=HASH(0xb097df4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
--- Comment #3 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-09-28
19:19:28 UTC ---
This is totally crazy. Perl complains that the attachment ID is tainted if you
are logged out, but not if you are logged in. And the error comes right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Bugzilla suffers an |Bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-09-29
16:46:08 UTC ---
Our code doesn't CC gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org by default. This is useless as it
already gets bugmails for all bugs in the gcc product thanks to our Bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45911
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-03-07
22:52:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Our bugzilla used to change the assign-to field away from
unassig...@gcc.gnu.org automatically. Now you have to do
it in two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45911
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-03-07
23:03:33 UTC ---
The word ASSIGNED is confusing people, because it sounds like a synonym for
the assignee field. In Bugzilla 4.0, we renamed ASSIGNED to IN_PROGRESS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46482
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2011-05-12
21:59:43 UTC ---
Is it still happening these days? Or can this bug be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46305
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
1 - 100 of 275 matches
Mail list logo
