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: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
Cc: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,"'Volker Reichelt '" <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>,"'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"'giovannibajo at libero dot it '" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:37:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:

Analyzed does not exist in Bugzilla (analyzed becomes "ASSIGNED"
if assigned to someone, "NEW" otherwise).


Aieee, please no.  There are so many analyzed PRs that are
unassigned, so what you say here would only make things harder.

We should have "NEW" for new and unconfirmed PRs and "CONFIRMED"
for confirmed PRs.  PRs should have the "ANALYZED" status when
somebody has zoomed in at the problem a bit closed.  PRs that are
"analyzed" now should stay "ANALYZED" in bugzilla IMHO.


It's just renamed, not different.
ANALYZED is now NEW.
non-ANALYZED is UNCONFIRMED.

As i stated, i'm not going to rename existing bug states.
Too much code touching that will cause merge conflicts.

It's adequately described what each state means.
--Dan

References:
- RE: Suggestion for a new GNATS policy
  - From: Wolfgang Bangerth

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