This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Assigning priorities to GNATS reports
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:21:22 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: Assigning priorities to GNATS reports
Now that the bug fixing phase for 3.2.1 is (mostly) done, what is the
policy on setting priorities to bug reports if they are regressions? I
think the last couple of weeks have shown that we can come up with large
numbers of regressions and mark them as "high" until the last minute
before the release. This way, there will always be known regressions if we
just go on sifting through the database.
I think the only way to avoid this is to _always_ mark regressions as
"high", even if we are not close to a release. This way, regressions would
be known for longer and not only days before an anticipated release,
giving more time to fix them. Should this be policy for us bug database
crawlers?
Regards
Wolfgang
PS: Looking at the number of bugs fixed for 3.2.1, I really lift my hat
towards those who did it! Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth