[Bug other/23281] New: Miscategorization of quality-of-implementation reports

["igodard at pacbell dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

This DR reflects bug report #23263 (q.v.) but addresses a larger issue. That
report has been categorized as an "enhancement request". 

Should this and other reports about diagnostic quality be treated as
"enhancement requests"? I suppose tht it depends on what you consider
"correctness". If correctness means "conforming to standard", then any
diagnostic will do, including "something wrong found somewhere in program".
Personally I use a different standard of "correct", which includes "usable", and
so addresses issues like compilation time measured in days as well as quality of
diagnostic.

I understand that the gcc implementation community has a notion of "QOI"
(quality of implementation) which reflects much of what I call "usable". But I
would distinguish a "defect of QOI" from an "enhancement request"; the latter
being something nice to have, but the former impacting real usage.

I put this particular DR (#23262) in the "defect of QOI" category. Even if you
do not, you probably can select a non-empty set of DRs that are truly "defects"
and not mere "enhancement requests. 

Consequently I'm filing this DR against the gcc DR reporting machinery itself,
rather than against the compiler in particular. There needs to be categories for
QOI defects of varying severity; either that, or complaints about diagnostics
and other QOI ussues should not by policy be filed as "enhancement requests",
and forgotten.

-- 
           Summary: Miscategorization of quality-of-implementation reports
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: other
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot net
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23281