Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> The bigger issue here, is that people seem to be using Bugzilla as a
>> kind-of TODO list for things may some day work on, but probably will
>
> I don't see any problem with that.
Me neither. In fact, I think there's a lo
NightStrike wrote:
On 12/19/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's take a bug as an example case: http://gcc.gnu.org/23835
Here, there is a bug report about a huge compile time increase. The
release manager decided that this was not a release blocker for GCC
4.2. So it was m
On 12/19/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's take a bug as an example case: http://gcc.gnu.org/23835
>
> Here, there is a bug report about a huge compile time increase. The
> release manager decided that this was not a release blocker for GCC
> 4.2. So it was marked P4, and it
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:17:00PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 4:32 PM, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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 th
On Dec 19, 2007 4:32 PM, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
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 t
Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
>
>>> Ok. I did check the GCC bugzilla help pages, and they don't mention
>>> SUSPENDED
>>> at all :-)
>>>
>
> I wrote:
>
>> Patches welcome, as they say.
>>
>
> Never mind; see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Bosscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:00 PM
> To: GCC
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
>
> Maybe it is just me, but I find it very annoying to have to wade
> th
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Ok. I did check the GCC bugzilla help pages, and they don't mention
> > SUSPENDED
> > at all :-)
I wrote:
> Patches welcome, as they say.
Never mind; see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html
for when to use SUSPENDED.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The bigger issue here, is that people seem to be using Bugzilla as a
> kind-of TODO list for things may some day work on, but probably will
I don't see any problem with that. It records known issues. We can then
use the existing fields, or create n
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > > So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old
> > > > bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSP
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think this would be a big mistake t
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this.
But this is pretty
> 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.
I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this.
If/when someone does start caring about that particular feature it'll be
impossible fo
15 matches
Mail list logo
