This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GNATS cleanup time for 3.2 regressions
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:45:36 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: GNATS cleanup time for 3.2 regressions
> It is definitely dead; 3.3 will be the next release.
OK, then we should go ahead.
> And people aren't
> being consistent about this: in preparing my first 3.3 bug fix list,
> I found that many PRs were closed although still present in 3.2.x
> (which, by the way, I agree with; we should just do it consistently).
I entirely agree: if something was not a regression, it wasn't going to be
fixed in 3.2, so if somebody had a fix for 3.3/3.4, the report should have
been closed.
> > I don't entirely trust our classification in all cases, so one should
> > probably double check whether something that says "[3.2 regression]" is
> > really a regression only in 3.2, and not something that was classified
> > like that before we started thinking about 3.3 and beyond.
>
> Agreed. However, if the audit trail already declares the bug fixed
> in 3.3 and the trunk, it is safe to close.
That's what I meant. I think I just wanted to say "don't close
unconditionally, at least peek into the audit trail".
> > In total I find
> > 194 PRs that have the string "3\.2" in them, which would be what needs to
> > be checked and/or changed.
>
> No need to check if it also says 3\.3 or 3\.4.
Correct, but we may want to drop the 3.2/ from the synopsis.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/