On 23 May, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
Right now, in order to change to CLOSED, you need to edit the bug
two times,
and this is suboptimal.
I wasn't even aware of this. Which might or might not indicate that
the
process is too complicated.
Regarding the existence of the two states at all: I have argued
previously
that that's unnecessary. Nathanael says that we need them for the
otherwise lack of QA in gcc, but I think that's not correct: every
patch
for a bug should come with a testcase, so at least in theory a bug
that
has once been fixed cannot reappear because it would show up in the
testsuite.
I get the feeling that this requirement is quite thoroughly handled.
If it
is not in some cases, then I think it is an undue burden on the
bugzilla
people if they have to maintain two states for _all_ bug reports.
It's an
undue burden because it can't be their responsibility to enforce the
testcase rule, but they would be forced to bear the consequences.
I would also like to posit that quite a number of bugs will then stay
RESOLVED indefinitely. If someone, say, fixes a bug on mn10200 or some
other obscure target, who's going to double-check after a release and
put
in into CLOSED?
Full Ack!
We've got more than 1600 open PRs. And we introduce a lot of bugs
with each new major release (although this seems to get better).
So I don't mind the couple of bugs slipping through the cracks of
the testsuite. They will be found like all the other bugs were
found. Having two states or more for closed bugs just wastes
resources that we need for managing the bug database and
confused the users IMHO.