This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
On Monday 12 January 2004 10:04, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> 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).
OK. But then the RM should also look at the importance of tbe bug, not just
the target milestone.
Gr.
Steven