This is the mail archive of the 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: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Monday 12 January 2004 06:21, Mark Mitchell wrote:

But this came up because one such regression (an accepts-illegal bug)
was found about a week ago, and then targeted for 3.4.  Many people
were trying to reclassify and retarget bugs.  Giovanni had set the
target milestone for this bug to 3.4.0, and I moved it to 3.5 because
we want Bugzilla to reflect the quality of the compiler, and a bug
that requires four years to be discovered in a pity but not a reason
to delay branching 3.4.0.  That doesn't suddenly not make it a
regression -- just one that is not a show stopper for 3.4.0.

Gaby sent a good mail about this , this morning, and I agree with him.
However, there is a deeper problem here:  Many really minor bugs get
targeted to the first upcoming release so we appear to have many bugs.
Then you look at the number of bugs and say you will not branch.

The priority field should indicate the importance of the bug. Regressions should still be targetted at the next scheduled release (until the RM decides otherwise).


Nathan Sidwell    ::   ::     CodeSourcery LLC    ::

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