This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[www-patch] Adjust bugs/management.html
- From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 23:20:55 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: [www-patch] Adjust bugs/management.html
- Reply-to: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
The following patch fixes a wrong severity and the policy for error
recovery bugs.
Applied as obvious.
======================================================================================
--- bugs/management.html Fri Jun 20 15:55:31 2003
+++ bugs/management.html Fri Jun 20 23:09:41 2003
@@ -204,9 +204,9 @@ The synopsis line should read</p>
<p>where <branches-to-fix> is the list of <em>maintained</em>
branches (separated by slashes) that need fixing. A regression should
-start with severity "<strong>blocker</strong>" to bring it to attention.
+start with severity "<strong>critical</strong>" to bring it to attention.
It may be downgraded later if a defect is not important enough to justify
-"blocker" severity.</p>
+"critical" severity.</p>
<p><strong>Bugs in component "bootstrap"</strong> that refer to older
releases or snapshots/CVS versions should be put into state "WAITING",
@@ -222,8 +222,8 @@ report her findings in any case (whether
<p><strong>Bugs with keyword "ice-on-invalid-code"</strong>, where gcc
emits a sensible error message before issuing an ICE (the ICE will be
replaced by the message "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" in
-release versions) should get "minor" severity.
-It should be noted in the comments that the error recovery fails.</p>
+release versions) should get "minor" severity and the additional keyword
+"error-recovery".</p>
</body>
======================================================================================