Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>]

>with these messages. May I ask you to discuss such issues on the main
>mailing list before doing it? We (bughunters) are trying to mantain 
Sure.

>and unmantainable. Moreover, we have bugzilla rights to do such batch
>changes without spamming gcc-bugs.
I wasn't actually batching them, you know... I caught at least three 
mis-resolved bugs in the process. :-/

I'm not sure why there's no way to poke a bug without flooding gcc-bugs 
(or indeed everyone else on the CC list).  And for that matter, if there
are privileges you have to avoid this that I don't, why that is. :-/  I've
poked large numbers of bugs in one day in the past as a matter of 
routine maintenance, sorting, correcting.

>Besides, we were discussing the whole VERIFIED/RESOLVED/CLOSED issue
>off-list (and once we would have found an agreement among ourselves, we 
>were going to bring the issue on the list of course). Theoretically, 
>nobody
Honestly, better to discuss this one on-list.  Probably better to have 
discussed it before the switchover, as well, but that's water under the 
bridge.

>decided yet if we wanted to mantain a difference between "closed" 
>states or
>not, so we might have to revert all these changes eventually (even if 
>we seem to agree that those states are useless and we simply want all 
>bugs CLOSED). Bugzilla itself might need changes once a policy is 
>adopted.

I think the verified/closed distinction is quite useful for noting bugs 
which are fixed but not in a released version.  (Of course some closed 
bugs are present in 3.3 as of now, but that's an acceptable transition 
state.)

Given the total lack of QA in GCC at the moment, perhaps 'resolved' is 
not a very useful status, but it's certainly true that only some of the 
currently 'resolved' bugs are actually resolved (I assume this is the 
usual unavoidable conversion glitches).

--Nathanael