This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Cc: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>,Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>,Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>,Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt at mathematik dot uni-ulm dot de>,ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:32:04 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes
- References: <20030523071817.GA17455@doctormoo> <3eb901c32106$c561d7b0$c64f2697@bagio>
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> The point about flooding the list is that I'm not expecting any RESOLVED
> bug to still be "unresolved". So, once the policy had been decided, I
> would have probably batch-changed all those bugs into CLOSED state
As a side-note: I moved several PRs of mine to RESOLVED, incorrectly
assuming this would "close" them.
Clearly, this was operator error on my side, but it's a data point that
we might consider removing the distinction between RESOLVED and CLOSED.
>> 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.)
Wouldn't that make things more complicated, overall? I think it's
perfectly save to add "Fixed on mainline, will be in GCC 3.4" and then
close a PR.
> Eric brought up the same point. What I cannot understand is for whom this
> distinction is useful. Because it's surely not for developers, nor for users
> which rarely greps in the bug database before submitting, and not among
> closed bugs anyway.
Ack.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/