--- Comment #17 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:18 ---
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.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- 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 #19 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 20:44
---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
It has the security patch ;)
None of this would have been a big deal if it hadn't taken bugzilla 10
years to decide on custom fields ;)
THe main
--- 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
--- 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 #22 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 21:05 ---
Yes, I think we should not merge the databases.
All I meant was that we should have a single version of the code running.
And, when upgrading, upgrade both instances at the same time.
--
--- 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? :)
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- 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 #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 19:54 ---
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 #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 #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 20:18 ---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
I think the call for volunteers at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00276.html
still applies.
--
--- 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 #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 20:33 ---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
There may be a few local code changes (Daniel mentioned email handling) to
carry over (it's quite possible newer versions don't need code changes for
--- 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 #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:01 ---
Created an attachment (id=19830)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19830action=view)
Local Bugzilla changes
Here's a diff generated with cvs -z9 diff -uN -rBUGZILLA_2_20 -rHEAD.
There are some
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19831)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19831action=view)
Diff from tarball
Here is a larger, probably more accurate diff generated using a release
tarball.
--
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-09 21:15 ---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
I think we agreed some time ago to remove the gccbug script - if we do
that then we shouldn't need to bring over anything related to processing
--- 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 #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 21:45
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Could someone having access to the Bugzilla server install the PatchReader
Perl
module? It's way easier to read patches this way.
I think it is already installed, just the
--- 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 #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-10 00:20
---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
The main email-related functionality for GCC is: all bugs in the gcc
product automatically get CC:ed to gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org (maybe other lists
--- 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 of
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-02-10 02:29
---
Subject: Re: Upgrade gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla to Bugzilla 3.4.5
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, LpSolit at netscape dot net wrote:
--- Comment #14 from LpSolit at netscape dot net 2010-02-10 00:29 ---
(In reply to
24 matches
Mail list logo
