Bug Digest 5/24

Dara Hazeghi dhazeghi@yahoo.com
Sun May 25 17:30:00 GMT 2003


--- Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo@libero.it> wrote:
> Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > gcc-bugs is still being flooded. I really think we
> need to come up with
> > 2 lists. One for new bugs and questions, one for
> followups on bugzilla.
> 
> Can you explain in detail why you think that the
> situation is now worse than
> it used to be with GNATS? Which kind of mail do you
> think are "flooding" the
> mailing list? If you want, you can install a filter
> on your mail program
> which can easily isolate non-followups. All new bugs
> are marked with a
> "New:" stamp by buzilla so you can isolate them.

I suppose that's reasonable. What I mean is that
before, there was a choice over whether a message just
went to gcc-prs or whether it went to gcc-bugs (you
could edit the addresses). Not the most elegant thing,
but it meant that every single change need not get to
gcc-bugs. My worry is simply that gcc-bugs will become
only a place where bug reports are discussed, and
actual discussions of bugs (independent of bug
reports) will be lost. I'm not certain if this was an
original intent of the list, but that was my
impression...

Regarding the messages themselves, I'm not subscribed,
so I stick to reading the archives.

> > what is the policy regarding assigned? Is it
> reasonable to assign
> > target-specific bugs to their respective port
> maintainers? The webpage
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html) doesn't
> indicate.
> 
> Right now, the policy about assigment is very
> conservative, as in: we don't
> assign bugs unless we're requested to. I agree this
> is sub-optimal, we may
> want to raise the issue on the main mailing list.

Hmm... I guess my primary concern is that bug reports
with patches are ignored long enough that the patches
themselves become irrelevant. I don't think this is a
good way to do things. 
> 
> Yes. If you can veryify that a bug always existed on
> 2.95 up 3.3, but it's
> fixed in 3.4, you can close the bug. The right place
> is on the main page:
> GCC 3.3 branch is open for regression fixes only.

Good point. I missed that. Umm, does going back to
2.95 mean testing one release per branch, or testing
all of them? Ie, is 2.95.3, 3.0.4, 3.1.1, 3.2.3, and
3.3 sufficient? Thanks,

Dara

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com



More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list