This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Use of Bugzilla fields
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:47 -0500
- Subject: Re: Use of Bugzilla fields
- References: <43653E2C.8020000@codesourcery.com>
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:42 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> [Danny, see below for a request.]
>
> In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
> new convention.
>
> Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
> require fixing for a particular release, I unset the target milestone.
> That's confusing because it might seem to mean that I'm saying the bug
> *can't* be fixed for a particular release, which isn't true.
>
> So, I'm going to adopt a new convention in these cases. In particular,
> I'm going to leave the target milestone alone, but set the priority field.
>
> P1 bugs will be bugs I think absolutely must be fixed before the next
> release; releasing with this bug would be diastrous.
>
> I'd like to use P2 to indicate that I've review the bug, and that it
> does not merit P1 status, but is important.
>
> So, Danny, is there any chance we could make it impossible for
> submitters to set this value and make P3 the default instead of P2?
Done.