Re: bug management: WAITING bugs that have timed out

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
> reproduce the bug.  Should that be used?

No, not generally.  This should only be used if someone says, I  
compile foo on platform bar and it didn't build and then someone  
tries building foo on a bar and it does build for them.  If the  
original didn't say which version of foo or bar or gcc they tested  
with, the person that gets a build out of it should report which  
version of foo and bar and gcc they used.  Another case, is if  
someone says a virtual call doesn't work with no testcase, and if the  
tester tests the canonical virtual call test case and it works, then  
WORKSFORME seems reasonable.

> INVALID (we don't know that),

A valid bug is one that is reproducible and shows a problem with  
conformance to a language standard, or a desired direction of the  
compiler.  Everything that fails to meet that standard is invalid by  
this definition.

Now, if the bug people wanted to add an insufficient state, that  
would be better.  Around here, we use verify/insufficient  
information.  The user can then respond, or, eventually if they don't  
it then goes to closed/insufficient information.