This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Status of Bugzilla?
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:30:59 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Status of Bugzilla?
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Observations on the states of bugs in Bugzilla:
Note that i haven't made changes to these yet until we have agreement on
the states, which we didn't seem to have last time.
> >From the definitions, it looks like "UNCONFIRMED" means what GNATS has as
> "open", and "NEW" means "analyzed". So new email submissions should start
> in "UNCONFIRMED".
> We don't have the QA system for verifying bug fixes implicit in the
> difference between "RESOLVED", "VERIFIED" and "CLOSED". Thus, these
> should all be merged into one "CLOSED".
> "WONTFIX" isn't a proper way to resolve a bug; we shouldn't have it.
> "LATER" and "REMIND" are both analogues of "suspended"; I think just one
> would suffice. Furthermore, "suspended" indicates an unfixed bug, not a
> fixed one, so such bugs should show up on default searches, as should
> UNCONFIRMED. This may mean not marking them RESOLVED/..., but having a
> new status value to cover nonresolutions that we now have as "feedback"
> and "suspended", or treating those as status values rather than
> resolutions (which I think would be the better option, meaning that
> UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED, SUSPENDED, FEEDBACK and CLOSED would
> be the statuses, and FIXED, INVALID, DUPLICATE, WORKSFORME the
> Can we have some milestones to play with when the database is next
> converted from GNATS? (At least, a 3.1 milestone, to which "high"
> priority bugs are assigned, but maybe some more. Note that incoming
> "high" priority bugs - from old gccbug versions, current gccbug doesn't
> allow them - shouldn't get milestones assigned to them, just those
> currently in GNATS.)
What bugs exactly do you want assigned to a 3.1 milestone?
Those with a version of 3.1 and a priority of high?
Or all those with a version of 3.1.
But not any bugs submitted through email?
> (Previously noted:) the summary version list should distinguish 2.96
> (redhat) from other 2.96, and 3.0-pre from 3.0 release.
> (Previously noted:) the full version string from bug reports (new and in
> GNATS) should be preserved, as well as the summary version for searches.
I'll make sure it gets into the comment text.
> (Previously noted:) the Class field from bug reports is useful and should
> be preserved. (OTOH, I doubt that Organization is, and Submitter-Id
> surely is not.)
We also didn't have real agreement on what to do about
priority/severity/class, so i didn't to anything.