Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Erik Schnetter <schnetter@uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

| On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:12:12 -0800, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics 
| dot uc dot edu> wrote:
| > Yes, closing as will not fix for a certain release like 3.3.3 because
| > it is not being worked on getting fixed for that release but is
| > already fixed for 3.4.
|  
| I have to admit that this policy did puzzle me quite a bit some time 
| ago.  At that time I was still using the released versions of gcc 
| (instead of a daily CVS checkout), and I was even using the most recent 
| release, not relying on my OS distributor to be up to date.  So I 
| encountered a bug, filed a report, and it was promptly closed a few 
| hours later with a comment like "cannot be reproduced on the mainline; 
| seems to have alreay been fixed."

   I think that is probably an error in procedure.

   Sometimes, we seem to forget that not everyone can afford to use
development branches.  What you describe below makes sense to me.
I have no idea how it could be implemented in Bugzilla.  But, at least
I would suggest we seriously consider it.

[...]

| I've seen other projects where bug reports for officially released, 
| recent versions are not closed, but are marked as "fixed in 3.4" 
| instead.  When the first 3.4 release happens, these bug reports get all 
| closed.  

That makes sense.

| That is always a big ego boost, because getting the release 
| out means closing quite a few bug reports.  (Hypothetically, one could 
| even check whether these bugs actually stayed fixed in the 3.4 branch.)

The purpose of the testsuite is to make sure (with a certain degree of
confidency) that a fixed bug remains fixed forever.

-- Gaby