Re: Bug Digest 5/24

["Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>]

Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> gcc-bugs is still being flooded. I really think we need to come up with
> 2 lists. One for new bugs and questions, one for followups on bugzilla.

Can you explain in detail why you think that the situation is now worse than
it used to be with GNATS? Which kind of mail do you think are "flooding" the
mailing list? If you want, you can install a filter on your mail program
which can easily isolate non-followups. All new bugs are marked with a
"New:" stamp by buzilla so you can isolate them.

> what is the policy regarding assigned? Is it reasonable to assign
> target-specific bugs to their respective port maintainers? The webpage
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html) doesn't indicate.

Right now, the policy about assigment is very conservative, as in: we don't
assign bugs unless we're requested to. I agree this is sub-optimal, we may
want to raise the issue on the main mailing list.

> Are 3.3 bugs which are not regressions, and have been fixed on 3.4,
> allowed to be closed? This also isn't clear (though I may not have
> looked in the right places).

Yes. If you can veryify that a bug always existed on 2.95 up 3.3, but it's
fixed in 3.4, you can close the bug. The right place is on the main page:
GCC 3.3 branch is open for regression fixes only. Developers cannot commit
fixes to non-regression bugs to the 3.3 branch. Thus, it would be useless to
keep the bug open.

Giovanni Bajo