GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule

[Daniel Berlin]

On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 01:44  PM, Janis Johnson wrote:

> 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.

I can re-enable voting, so people can vote for bugs that are good 
candidates for regression hunts, if you like.