On 9/6/06, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Fish wrote:
> However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
> that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
> make it to stable. That way at least the stabilization bug will
> continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
> through.
Try to come up with a different solution, I don't want fixed bugs
clogging up my view of real, open ones. Perhaps a keyword like Testing
or so.
Yeah, I know that is going to be a significant complaint with this
idea, and I'm hoping to have a better revision of it. Maybe re-assign
the bug to arch testers, or some other holding account, after you are
done with it. That way it wouldn't clutter your assigned bug list,
but also continues to reflect open status for the tracker bug[s].
I just think that too many things in the stable tree broke in this
upgrade, so we should try something different next time. Ironically,
I think ~arch users probably had fewer issues overall when they
upgraded to 4.1! I'm assuming of course that had the gcc team and
others known how much things would break by stabilizing 4.1 that a
bigger push would have been made to clean things up before-hand.
In fact, I think the model that you used for the modular-X porting
effort was great (and probably also took great effort :-). You didn't
just file bugs and let them rot, you continued hounding people to fix
things on -dev, with frequent updates of just how broken things were,
and how much (or little) progress was being made.
-Richard
--
[email protected] mailing list
