This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:55:14 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
> I'll reiterate that if we put these testcases in the testsuite, XFAILed
> and with cross-references from testcase to bug number and from bug to
> testcase, they would be automatically tested by many people on many
> platforms and an accidental fix would be noticed immediately as an XPASS
> when the patch accidentally fixing the bug is tested. In that case the
> keyword "monitored" could be used to mean "there is an XFAILed testcase in
> the testsuite for this bug, and it isn't specific to a rarely tested
> platform".
I had thought so, too, but I have changed my mind on this. We now have a
quite active community of people just working on gnats, why bother them
with the procedures of using CVS, make check, etc? I think we have
successfully "modularized" the process into bug confirmation/reducting/
tracking on the one hand, and fixing on the other hand. Mixing these
processes just makes things harder for everyone, and in particular raises
the entry level for newcomers. I think the present process is pretty good.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/