Suggestion for a new GNATS policy

[Daniel Berlin]

>
>>> So IMHO we need some stricter requirements for reports in state
>>> "analyzed". Knowing that any analyzed PR is in the right class and
>>> has a simple testcase attached and a suitable synopsis line would
>>> help the bug fixers to do their work efficiently.
>
> We should have a "confirmed" state, which would mean that somebody 
> with GCC
> PR DB write access can reproduce the bug (possibly after receiving
> feedback).

This is "NEW".  There is an UNCONFIRMED state for UNCONFIRMED bugs.


>   "analyzed" should mean that at least the category is set and
> that a reduced test case is available.
>

Why?
you can mark them with a keyword or bug status flags.
Stop overloading bug states for this functionality.
Geez.

>> Analyzed does not exist in Bugzilla (analyzed becomes "ASSIGNED"
>> if assigned to someone, "NEW" otherwise).
>
> Aieee, please no.  There are so many analyzed PRs that are
> unassigned, so what you say here would only make things harder.
>
> We should have "NEW" for new and unconfirmed PRs and "CONFIRMED"
> for confirmed PRs.  PRs should have the "ANALYZED" status when
> somebody has zoomed in at the problem a bit closed.  PRs that are
> "analyzed" now should stay "ANALYZED" in bugzilla IMHO.
>
These should be bug flags, *not* states.

> I don't know how many states you defined,  gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
> used to work but now it fails...

Chris upgraded perl today, apparently.
Needs to reinstall some packages.

>   (Does Bugzilla allow you to
> define your own states at all???)
Yes, but there is no need in this case.
>
>
>> In most cases, there is no need. One just has to remember to
>> put the right thing in the CVS commit message, and it'll get
>> added to the PR as a comment.
>
> It's not unusual for a PR to be fixed without anyone noticing.
> For 3.3, I closed some PRs that got fixed by some patch, but
> the CVS commit message didn't mention the PR (probably because
> nobody knew about the PR...) so the PR stayed open.  I think
> everybody has seen PRs like that.
>
>> You can easily query for bugs that haven't (or have) been
>> touched in x days in Bugzilla, so there is no need to put
>> timestamps on bugs and whatnot.
>
> You can do that with GNATS, too.  Just not very user friendly,
> it _can_ be done.
>
> Greetz
> Steven
>