Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>P5 bugs will be ones I consider too unimportant to block *any* future
>>release. I'm going to add links to the main web page to query for the
>>regressions I think are important enough to block a release.
>
> Could you or somebody please update the "Known regressions" b
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> P1 bugs will be bugs I think absolutely must be fixed before the next
> release; releasing with this bug would be diastrous.
>
> I'd like to use P2 to indicate that I've review the bug, and that it
> does not merit P1 status, but is important.
>
> P3 w
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 17:48 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> It might be better to add a flag for this istead of using the priority
> >> field.
>
> >I think it's an appropriate use of the priority field; the priority
> >field is supposed to say how important the bug is, which is another way
> >of
>> It might be better to add a flag for this istead of using the priority
>> field.
>I think it's an appropriate use of the priority field; the priority
>field is supposed to say how important the bug is, which is another way
>of saying how excited we should be about fixing it in an upcoming relea
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>[Danny, see below for a request.]
>>
>>In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
>>new convention.
>>
>>Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
>>require fixing for a particular release, I unset the target milestone.
>>Tha
>
> [Danny, see below for a request.]
>
> In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
> new convention.
>
> Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
> require fixing for a particular release, I unset the target milestone.
> That's confusing beca
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Does this mean regressions for languages and platforms other than those in
> the release criteria should now have the milestone set, but be marked as
> P4 or P5?
Yes, as P5. But, I don't intend to try to go back and find those that
are already unmarked, and "fix" the m
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
> require fixing for a particular release, I unset the target milestone.
> That's confusing because it might seem to mean that I'm saying the bug
> *can't* be fixed for a particular releas
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:42 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> [Danny, see below for a request.]
>
> In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
> new convention.
>
> Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
> require fixing for a particular release,
[Danny, see below for a request.]
In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
new convention.
Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
require fixing for a particular release, I unset the target milestone.
That's confusing because it might seem t
10 matches
Mail list logo
