Moving ports architectures to libc?

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 03:11:00AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > One thing I failed to consider in my proposal: what do we do with the 
> > "ports" Bugzilla component?
> 
> We have an 'Architecture' field in the Red Hat bugzilla which I've
> found to be quite useful.  I don't know if it is a customization or an
> existing feature in bugzilla that just needs to be turned on.
> 
> It would be nice to be able to select multiple architectures though
> (which is not possible in the Red Hat bugzilla AFAICT), so maybe
> bugzilla flags or some other similar method may be a better idea.

The aim is that it's obvious in search results (preferably default 
results, though you can customize columns) which bugs are 
architecture-specific, and what architecture they are specific to.  Hence 
the suggestion of [arm] at the start of bug descriptions.

If a special field is used, it needs to be unambiguous that this is for 
architecture-specific bugs and *not* for the architecture the original 
submitter observed the bug on - it should only be set when confident the 
bug is architecture-specific.

I *don't* want multiple architectures selected on one bug.  If the same 
bug appears in architecture-specific code for more than one architecture 
(which can certainly happen) then it's best to consider them as separate 
bugs, so when someone fixes the bug only for a subset of architectures 
they can close exactly the relevant bugs and it's clear what bugs are left 
for fixing on other architectures.  (I don't really like retitling a bug 
to reduce its scope after parts have been fixed; it's confusing if the 
title of the bug after it was finally fixed only reflects the last case 
fixed rather than all the cases fixed for that bug.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com