This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
References: <571f6b510712181659w64b16ae5ndc32b38de6f5c56c@mail.gmail.com> <200712190111.11959.paul@codesourcery.com>

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old
> > bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED. Start shooting.
> 
> I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this.

But this is pretty much what SUSPENDED means; it means that there's no
intent to work on the bug in the near term.

> If/when someone does start caring about that particular feature it'll be 
> impossible for them to distinguish between bugs that have been deliberately 
> closed (typically because the cure is worse than the disease), and those that 
> you've closed through apathy.

That's an argument for not using WONTFIX.

On the other hand, bugs could just be dropped to P5, and people doing
queries would exclude that.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
  - From: Paul Brook

References:
- Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]