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: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:25:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
References: <571f6b510712181659w64b16ae5ndc32b38de6f5c56c@mail.gmail.com> <200712190111.11959.paul@codesourcery.com> <20071219012050.GM2908@synopsys.com>

On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> 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.

Ok. I did check the GCC bugzilla help pages, and they don't mention SUSPENDED 
at all :-)

Paul

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

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
- Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever
  - From: Joe Buck

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