GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule

[Janis Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:05:24PM -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> 
> > Wolfgang, do you think it would be worthwhile to add a flag to PRs that
> > are good candidates for regression hunts? 
> 
> I haven't followed this too closely lately, but I had the impression that 
> knowing which patch fixed something (unfortunately) did not imply that the 
> bug was fixed soon. But that's a question those have to answer who _do_ fix 
> bugs, not us bugzilla people. If they say that's useful information, then 
> let's do it.

I kept track of this for a few months; regressions whose introductions
are reported aren't fixed sooner, but the people who fix them say the
information is (usually/often) useful.  In several cases it got the
right people to take a close look at PRs and notice that the test case
was not valid, and that's also worthwhile.

> Apart from that, if you have spare cycles: there are ~150 regressions, most 
> have small testcases these days, and most have not seen a regression hunt. 

Looking through PRs to figure out which ones might be good candidates
can be very time-consuming.

> Pick your favorite.[1]
> 
> W.
> 
> [1] No, actually, pick _my_ favorite ones: 9483, 11027, 11050, 11071 :-)

Yes, you always have favorites, and flags in Bugzilla would be an easy
way for you to communicate those to people who feel like doing some
hunts.  It's easy for you to let me know, but I hope that other people
want to get in on the fun sometimes, too.

Janis