your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> The point about flooding the list is that I'm not expecting any RESOLVED
> bug to still be "unresolved". So, once the policy had been decided, I
> would have probably batch-changed all those bugs into CLOSED state

As a side-note: I moved several PRs of mine to RESOLVED, incorrectly
assuming this would "close" them.

Clearly, this was operator error on my side, but it's a data point that
we might consider removing the distinction between RESOLVED and CLOSED.

>> I think the verified/closed distinction is quite useful for noting bugs
>> which are fixed but not in a released version.  (Of course some closed
>> bugs are present in 3.3 as of now, but that's an acceptable transition
>> state.)

Wouldn't that make things more complicated, overall?  I think it's
perfectly save to add "Fixed on mainline, will be in GCC 3.4" and then
close a PR.

> Eric brought up the same point. What I cannot understand is for whom this
> distinction is useful. Because it's surely not for developers, nor for users
> which rarely greps in the bug database before submitting, and not among
> closed bugs anyway.

Ack.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry"   pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/