On 19/12/2007, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The current list of "All regressions" should be a list of bugs that > people are actively trying to resolve, preferably before the release > of GCC 4.3. Instead, it is a mix of high-activity bug reports and bug > reports where even the target maintainer has been unwilling for 3.5 > years to spend some time on resolving the bug report. So to pick a bug > report to work on, I need to go through the but report summaries of a > long list, trying to pick out new regressions between the old > no-one-cares P4 and P5 regressions. >
I am sorry but I don't understand how this can be possible. Old no-one-cares have a lower ID than new ones. So if you start with the list backwards you should always get the newer ones. Also, PRs that are regressions for 4.3 only cannot be that old (but perhaps they are no-one-cares). On the other hand, there are around 1003 PRs UNCONFIRMED. Those are annoying. > Maybe it is just me, but I find it very annoying to have to wade > through long bug lists, so I just don't do this. Instead I just don't > look at P4/P5 regressions anymore at all. It's just too much trouble > to find a bug report where the reporter or the target maintainer cares > as much as you do about resolving the bug. Well, perhaps instead of 2 lists: Serious regressions and All regressions. We should have 3 lists: High priority, Medium Priority, Low priority. High priority is the same as Serious regressions, Medium are P4 and P5 and Low priority are those that you just described (P6?). Anyway, I don't typically look at those lists. I create my own customized searches and save them. Cheers, Manuel.
