bugs fixed on the tree-ssa

[Mark Mitchell]

On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 10:46, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:21 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> >> I agree. Suspended looks like an appropriate state for me. Let's just 
> >> wait
> >> until the merge really happens, and then we can revisit the bugs. 
> >> Meanwhile, it
> >> might be useful to add the testcases for the bugs to the branch, so 
> >> that we can
> >> reasonably sure that they stay fixed.
> >
> > The right solution is clear: there should be a per-branch state for
> > bugs, or, equivalently, bug-state keywords on a per-branch basis.
> 
> Actually, what we've been working on is somewhat similar
> a "known to work" field that lists versions the bug is known to be 
> fixed in
> a "known to fail" field that lists versions the bug is known not to be 
> fixed in

Yes, that should be fine too.

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC