This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
- From: Frédéric Buclin <LpSolit at netscape dot net>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:39:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
- References: <20100925054454.GA81084@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20100925084632.GK2652@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20100925142844.GB83390@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <AANLkTimOy+Vqu9VW0RY+FL6N+8CZw0HTxWCO72Z_qQJc@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1104092128530.3701@gerinyyl.fvgr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104100017130.32479@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <4DA23482.4000400@netscape.net> <BANLkTinn=paDOmjtkZMr9kB=fv2e9MVSCA@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: LpSolit at netscape dot net
Le 11. 04. 11 01:33, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
> Most of those cases are the reporter changing the status to VERIFIED
> after a gcc maintainer has set it to RESOLVED. That doesn't mean the
> maintainers use VERIFIED of that keeping it is useful.
If they are useless, then they should be removed to avoid confusion and
to make queries easier. But if we keep them, then they should be
described as any other bug status. An external user cannot guess that
they have no special meaning for you.
Frédéric