On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:59:51AM +0100, Steven Bosscher 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.
No, it should be exactly what it says it is. If you want an additional list of bugs that are being actively worked on (and labelled as such), that's fine (although I have no idea how that list would be useful). > 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. That may be an indication that maintainership should be passed on to someone else. I don't see how it can be an indication that the bug should not be fixed. > 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. PR numbers are assigned in ascending order. The newest regressions have the highest numbers. What exactly is the problem you're facing when starting with the highest-numbered PRs? > To me, the situation is quite clear: If a bug report is open for so > long, and even the reporter and the responsible maintainer show no > sign of motivation to work on resolving the bug, I think this tells us > something about how important this bug is: Not important enough to > fix. IMOH we should close such reports as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED to > make them less visible, so that other bug reports don't fall through > the cracks. > > So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old > bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED. Start shooting. Having assigned myself to and/or posted patches for some of the bugs you want to close as WONTFIX, including four which have four-digit PR numbers, my response is predictable: No way. -- Rask Ingemann Lambertsen Danish law requires addresses in e-mail to be logged and stored for a year
