This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:48:39 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
> > Since GNATS doesn't have a field for this, we're putting it into the
> > synopsis.
>
> Please put it somewhere else, since
> 1. It is as a temporary measure (since we are moving soon)
> 2. I can't remove it during conversion easily, and it'll uglify reading
> bug lists since some bugs have them, and others don't. Adding it to the
> front will also cause it to truncate some of the actual description.
> Already we have crap like:
> "[2003-05-03] [diagnostic] Bug in template type in error m..."
I don't think we're changing our policies here -- this has been the result
of deliberate thinking. The need for [DATE] has been explained previoulsy,
the fact that some bugs have and some don't have it just reflects whether
someone has recently reconfirmed it. At least in the C++ category, if a
bug doesn't have it, it will soon have it as we go through all of them.
Christian (or Volker) has proposed a way to transfer the information, so I
guess we should keep with our habit here.
> Nobody can even tell what this is a bug about anymore. The fact that
> it was confirmed 2003-05-03 doesn't help anybody, but the fact that
> [2003-05-03][diagnostic] takes up 33% of the summary line hurts
> everyone.
I think that's wrong. I don't know how developers pick bugs they are going
to fix, but I guess its by either
- looking at the list of regressions
- checking for a certain keyword in the synopsis ("friend", "typeof")
In any case, developers certainly spend less time in the bug database than
"bugmasters". So by cluttering up the synopsis, we'd mainly hurt
ourselves. I don't have the feeling we do.
This is all moot, though, I think we've already agreed that the [DATE] and
[... regression] tags will go from the synopsis into fields of their own.
I just made the point to stress again that we are talking about different
communities and that for the bug database "developers" are probably not
the main target.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/