Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Richard Guenther wrote: | > On 4/29/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | >>Joseph S. Myers wrote: | >> | >>>What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0 | >>>and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix? | >> | >>They should be closed as FIXED, with a note. It would be wrong to use | >>WONTFIX, since the bug is in fact FIXED in 4.0; it might make sense to | >>use WONTFIX if the bug was introduced on the 3.4 branch and never | >>present elsewhere. | > What about bugs like PR17860 which are not regressions to previous | > versions | > but fixed in 4.0? In the audit trail there was the remark that closing as FIXED | > is not ok. Though I would say closing as FIXED and using the target milestone | > to indicate where it was fixed seems ok. WONTFIX would certainly be misleading | > (though we won't fix it for the release the bug was reported against). | | I'm not sure we need to worry too much about exactly how we mark | these. We've got the situation where 3.4.4 will follow 4.0.0 | chronologically, though it somewhat precedes it conceptually. So,
I believe we could that this has become traditional, given experience with the 3.2.x anf 3.3.x series. | what target milestone should we use? I'm happy to use the one in | which we first fixed the bug chronologically. So, if we're not going | to fix 17860 in 3.4.x, we should just marked it FIXED in 4.0. that makes sense to me. -- Gaby
