GNATS policy question

[Volker Reichelt]

On 12 Dec, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:48:03 AM +0100 Volker Reichelt 
> <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Dec, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>>> What's the GNATS policy about PRs that issue an ICE in development
>>>> versions and a "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" message in
>>>> release versions?
>>>
>>> We should mark those PRs medium-priority.
>>>
>>> GCC simply doesn't have a coherent design for error-recovery, and until
>>> it does the set of places where we crash after error messages will move
>>> around from time to time, hopefully shrinking over time.  I have ideas
>>> about this, but not enough time to implement them ...
>>
>> Shouldn't we suspend those PRs then? We could add "[error-recovery]" to
>> the synopsis line. Maybe some of the PRs will be fixed with the new
>> parser, so IMHO we should suspend them till the new parser arrives
>> anyway before spending too much effort on them.
> 
> It's very hard to say where the problems are.  Some might be fixed by the
> new parser.  Others need error recovery code in the front ends.  I think
> it's OK to keep them open -- they *are* defects.  Just not very important
> ones.  Maybe mark them low priority?

Low priority sounds good to me.

Three final questions:
* Should we add "[error-recovery]" to the synopsis line so that one does
  not stumble over those bugs over and over again?
* Shall I prepare a patch for the policies section of gnatswrite.html
  to document the procedure?
* There are some bugs in GNATS that were closed because a "confused by
  earlier ..." message was issued. Shall I reopen them?

Regards,
Volker