[PATCH docs] remove Java from GCC 7 release criteria

Martin Sebor msebor@gmail.com
Thu Mar 2 22:41:00 GMT 2017

On 03/02/2017 12:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 02/28/2017 11:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On March 1, 2017 3:34:46 AM GMT+01:00, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 02/28/2017 01:41 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>> On February 28, 2017 7:00:39 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/28/2017 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>>>>> The GCC 7 release criteria page mentions Java even though
>>>>>>> the front end has been removed.  The attached patch removes Java
>>>>>>> from the criteria page.  While reviewing the rest of the text I
>>>>>>> noticed a few minor typos that I corrected in the patch as well.
>>>>>>> Btw., as an aside, I read the page to see if I could find out more
>>>>>>> about the "magic" bug counts that are being aimed for to decide
>>>> when
>>>>>>> to cut the release.  Can someone say what those are and where to
>>>>>>> find them?  I understand from the document that they're not exact
>>>>>>> but even ballpark numbers would be useful.
>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>> WRT the bug counts.  0 P1 regressions, < 100 P1-P3 regressions.  I'm
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> sure if that's documented anywhere though.
>>>>> Actually the only criteria is zero P1 regressions.  Those are
>>>> documented to block a release.
>>>> Yes, that is mentioned in the document.  Would it be fair to say
>>>> that the number of P2 bugs (or regressions) or their nature plays
>>>> into the decision in some way as well?  If so, what can the release
>>>> criteria say about it?
>>> Ultimatively P2 bugs do not play a role and 'time' will trump them.  OTOH we
>>> never were in an uncomfortable situation with P2s at the desired point of
>>> release.
>>> Also note that important P2 bugs can be promoted to P1 and not important P1
>>> to P2.
>>>> I'm trying to get a better idea which bugs to work on and where
>>>> my help might have the biggest impact.  I think having better
>>>> visibility into the bug triage process (such as bug priorities
>>>> and how they impact the release schedule) might help others
>>>> focus too.
>>> In order of importance:
>>> - P1
>>> - wrong-code, rejects-valid, ice-on-valid (even if not regressions,
>>> regressions more important)
>>> - P2 regressions, more recent ones first (newest working version)
>> I see.  This is helpful, thanks.
>> The kinds of problems you mention are discussed in the document
>> so just to make the importance clear, would adding the following
>> after this sentence
>>   In general bugs blocking the release are marked with priority P1
>>   (Maintaining the GCC Bugzilla database).
>> accurately reflect what you described?
>>   As a general rule of thumb, within each priority level, bugs that
>>   result in incorrect code are considered more urgent than those
>>   that lead to rejecting valid code, which in turn are viewed as
>>   more severe than ice-on-valid code (compiler crashes).  More
>>   recently reported bugs are also prioritized over very old ones.
> I'd rather see to clarify things in bugs/management.html.  Note
> that wrong-code, rejects-valid, ice-on-valid are equally important.
> Less important would be accepts-invalid or ice-on-invalid or, of course,
> missed-optimization.  Also it's not more recently _reported_  bugs
> but a [6/7 Regression] is more important to fix than a [5/6/7 Regression]
> (this is also why [7 Regression]s are P1 by default).

Got it.  Attached is a rewording of the paragraph above added to
bugs/management.html.  I put it under the Importance (Severity
and Priority) heading but it could probably fit just as well under
Procedures and Policies.

Please let me know if there's anything else that can be said to
further clarify things, or if you have any other suggestions.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gcc-bug-management.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2006 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20170302/56d372e3/attachment.bin>

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list