On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 11/03/11 22:54, Mounir Bsaibes wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:31 PM, James Westby <james.wes...@linaro.org >> <mailto:james.wes...@linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:31:57 -0600, Mounir Bsaibes >> <mounir.bsai...@linaro.org <mailto:mounir.bsai...@linaro.org>> wrote: >> > Copying James to check whether there was a reason for mapping >> Won't fix to >> > Postponed. If there is no compelling reason, maybe it is an easy >> change to >> > map it to Done instead. >> >> It is an easy change. >> >> I believe that this is done due to the way that series-targeted bugs >> work in LP. >> >> When you target a bug to a series, say "gcc-4.4", you can remove that >> targeting by marking the bug "Won't Fix". That is presumably why this >> is >> there. >> >> >> I'm wary of changing it without understanding that interaction better >> though. >> >> James, are you going to check on that and make a decision, whether it >> is ok to change the mapping? >> >> For the other issue: bugs in gcc-linaro-tracking showing as in >> progress work items. Can we exclude the gcc-linaro-tracking from the >> status, if we decide to? > > I specifically want to include gcc-linaro-tracking items. That's why I added > them.
Hi Andrew. What is your goal here? I'm concerned as status.linaro.org counts each tracking ticket as a work item and this inflates the amount of work recorded. I've assumed that the upstreaming work is rolled into the original work item or bug report which is already tracked. -- Michael _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
