This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes
- From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- To: bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu
- Cc: giovannibajo at libero dot it, pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, neroden at twcny dot rr dot com,ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,dberlin at dberlin dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes
- Reply-to: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
On 23 May, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>
>> Right now, in order to change to CLOSED, you need to edit the bug two times,
>> and this is suboptimal.
>
> I wasn't even aware of this. Which might or might not indicate that the
> process is too complicated.
>
> Regarding the existence of the two states at all: I have argued previously
> that that's unnecessary. Nathanael says that we need them for the
> otherwise lack of QA in gcc, but I think that's not correct: every patch
> for a bug should come with a testcase, so at least in theory a bug that
> has once been fixed cannot reappear because it would show up in the
> testsuite.
>
> I get the feeling that this requirement is quite thoroughly handled. If it
> is not in some cases, then I think it is an undue burden on the bugzilla
> people if they have to maintain two states for _all_ bug reports. It's an
> undue burden because it can't be their responsibility to enforce the
> testcase rule, but they would be forced to bear the consequences.
>
> I would also like to posit that quite a number of bugs will then stay
> RESOLVED indefinitely. If someone, say, fixes a bug on mn10200 or some
> other obscure target, who's going to double-check after a release and put
> in into CLOSED?
Full Ack!
We've got more than 1600 open PRs. And we introduce a lot of bugs
with each new major release (although this seems to get better).
So I don't mind the couple of bugs slipping through the cracks of
the testsuite. They will be found like all the other bugs were
found. Having two states or more for closed bugs just wastes
resources that we need for managing the bug database and
confused the users IMHO.
Regards,
Volker