bugzilla for glibc: let's get moving!

[Andreas Jaeger]

Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:

>> I suggest to look at the GCC bug page and copy stuff from there.  We
>> should explictly stress that we need self-contained testcases and
>> cannot debug any complex programs.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html says lots of useful details about how to write
> a good bug report.  If someone wants to write up text like that for libc,
> that would be great.  If something really useful is written up, it should
> probably go in the Reporting Bugs node in the manual (install.texi) as well.
> I don't really have time to do that writing.

So, let's ask for some volunteers ;-)

>> Btw. are we setting up a mailing list like gcc-bugs that gets all bugs?
>
> I will inquire about this.

Thanks.

>> We should add architecture specific bugs and the usual port
>> maintainers as default.
>
> This is a possibility.  There is also the "host triplet" field in bug
> reports.  This is something you can do selective queries on easily enough.
> When triage verifies that a bug is machine-dependent, the bug could just be
> assigned to the canonical person for that port.  I am not really against
> adding per-machine components, but I'm not sure it's what makes most sense.

Then let's go first without it and later see whether we need it...

>> Also I suggest to add:
>> math (libm): aj
>> nscd: kukuk
>
> Good ideas.

Fine,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-hacker/attachments/20040120/6ee45598/attachment.sig>