This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Some bug policies [Was: Bug Digest 5/24]
- From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>
- To: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Cc: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 17:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Some bug policies [Was: Bug Digest 5/24]
> I don't think we want discussion of bugs in this
> list. A bug which is
> discussed is lost until it's filed to Bugzilla. And
> besides, we are not
> asking users to post their bugs in gcc-bugs.
> gcc-bugs is just a way to track
> what's going on, people should file bugs to
> Bugzilla, and then discuss them
> on the audit trail of the bug itself.
That's reasonable. I guess sometimes I see people send
messages saying "xyz doesn't work here" I think "abc"
is to blame, and someone will respond in kind, but
that's pretty rare, and usually it's the developers
anyway, so that works I guess...
> Yes, but we still don't want the list to be flooded.
> If you feel that there
> are a certain kind of "bug updates" that shouldn't
> need to be posted on
> gcc-bugs, just raise the issue, we can fully
> configure which kind of mails
> gcc-bugs gets.
I think most of the stuff there is probably okay. It
also seems to be settling down now, as the number of
unconfirmed bugs drops...
> the bug's audit trail,
> you could explain the author to post it to
> gcc-patches. Also, we could add a
> keyword "patch-pending" for bugs whose patch was not
> reviewed yet (but I
> kind of fear that reviewers are not going to query
> for it often...)
Yes, I see what you mean. I'll certainly encourage bug
submitters to send their patches to gcc-patches. I
almost wish there was a Status category for bugs with
submitted patches, but I suppose that'll complicate
things a bit unnecessarily.
> Yes, you usually want to check with the last dot
> release of each branch. Of
> course, if a bug is reported against 3.2.1, and you
> cannot reproduce it with
> 3.2.3, you should check with 3.2.1 or 3.2.0 to see
> if you can reproduce it.
> Closing a bug without being able to reproduce it is
> a risky move.
Right. That's pretty much what I thought. Now if only
I had a bigger disk... :-)
Thanks,
Dara
P.S. The number of unconfirmed reports in bugzilla is
now smaller than the number which are awaiting
feedback... Wow!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com