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
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
Hello,
This is a complaint about how the bug database is being managed. It
is getting harder and harder to find bug reports to work on, because
too many old bug reports are being kept open even though there is no
sign of intent to ever resolve the report.
For example, PR18346 is a bug report in
16 matches
Mail list logo
