On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:43, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > > On 15 Dec 2021, at 12:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Tobias Burnus wrote: > >> > >> On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > >> > >>> Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regression info in the > >>> Summary. Currently it does draw your attention when looking at the > >>> results of a bugzilla search. Andrew noted that bug aliases are > >>> automatically added to the summary, e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94404 > >>> shows its alias "(c++core-issues)". > >> Wouldn't it be easier to click on the "[Change Columns]" button at the > >> bottom of the search result page and add the new field to the "Selected > >> Columns"? The known-to-(work/fail) columns are available, i.e. this > >> feature also works with custom fields. > > > > Yes, I'd be fine with that solution (thanks, for the reminder, I > > should have mentioned that option in my initial mail). > > > > If you reorder the "known to fail" column so it comes right before the > > Summary column you would get a clear list of regressions shown before > > the rest of the summary (and nothing in that column for > > non-regressions). > > > > A possible downside is that would show all the branches the regression > > was on, including closed ones. Again, I'd be fine with that, but it's > > a change from the info visible at a glance in the Summary today. > > I just tried this with my local search and it line-wraps the list so that it > does not matter too much about the number of branches reported. > > However "known to fail” is not currently “regressed for” they have distinct > meanings (both of which are useful IMO).
Yes I didn't mean to imply that, sorry. I was just using the known-to-fail field to test it, because we don't have the regressions one to test with, and I sent a muddled reply. What I should have said is that if you reorder the hypothetical new field you would get a clear list of regressions.
