public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED
@ 2003-06-01  4:21 Dara Hazeghi
  2003-06-02 15:53 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dara Hazeghi @ 2003-06-01  4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs; +Cc: bangerth

--- Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
 > I think I left out something: I wouldn't have closed the report if I
 > didn't get feedback, or if it wasn't sufficient. I would just have 
left
 > the PR open.

Yes, that makes more sense. I think the general policy should be that 
bugs get closed only when there's good evidence that they've been 
fixed, and lack of feedback, save under very special circumstances, 
doesn't fall in that category (the special circumstances being for 
example, that a patch for the particular problem was installed, but 
nobody has he configuration in question, and no feedback is obtainable 
from anybody who does).

 >
 > We're presently having a problem with PRs in WAITING: you guys have 
been
 > putting lots of PRs into WAITING, for which I have the feeling that
 > there's already enough info in the PR. We shouldn't be closing these
 > reports if we don't get feedback in 3 months. We
 > should review each of  them again then.

I agree that we shouldn't close bugs willy-nilly. But I think the vast 
majority of bugs in feedback really should be in feedback. Looking at 
the two biggest categories in feedback, we've got bootstrap and target, 
and both of those are the type which generally require a fair bit of 
information...

 > That sound reasonable for bugs on obscure targets.

Good.

 > For example? For C/C++/Optimization, we do not put PRs into NEW just
 > because it "looks like this could indeed happen". I would be very much
 > opposed if we would adopt this as sufficient.

No, but what I mean is that C/C++ bugs are _generally_ reproducible 
across targets, meaning you don't need a specific machine to test them 
(usually). I certainly hope I haven't been marking bugs as NEW for 
those reasons :-)

 > Basically:
 >   Wolfgang   x86-linux only
 >   Volker     same
 >   Christian  sparc
 >   Giovanni   windows stuff
 >   Falk       alpha (and some more)
 >   Dara       seems like everything else :-)

Not quite. Right now I have access to PowerPC/Darwin, x86/Linux, 
Sparc/Solaris. Hopefully this summer: HPPA/HPUX, IA64/HPUX, and 
IA64/Linux.

Looks like the main missing ones are MIPS/IRIX, Alpha/Tru64 and the 
small embedded ones (SH, Arm, etc.).
 >
 > > Another question I have is about including the platform of a bug in 
the
 > > summary (ie "[powerpc64] blah fails doing foo". Now that Daniel has
 > > made it possible to edit the host and target fields (thanks 
again!), it
 > > seems to me that we should be using those, rather than the bug 
summary,
 >
 > I'm not yet won over -- PR submitters will fill in these fields for 
front
 > end bugs as well, and then searching will become more difficult again.
 > Also, what if a bug exists on multiple targets?

Good point. I concede that in this case the information is useful. I 
withdraw that suggestion.

 > I do it with a few people who I know are usually responsive to my
 > requests. Otherwise only if I contacted them on- or off-list. I 
consider
 > it as impolite just assigning a bug to someone without asking 
beforehand.
 >
 > I think this is a question for the maintainers to answer.

Right. I guess that pretty much answers all my questions. Now back to 
finding out what's going on with Ada on Darwin...

Dara

P.S. Could somebody take a look at 10922 sometime? I definitely should 
have taken a C++ course earlier this year, but until then...

P.P.S. Also, my message to the list about cygwin doesn't seem to have 
gotten any response. My question was basically: is building with MS 
VC++ supported (IMHO no), and if not, should we document this in the 
target specific installation instructions.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED
@ 2003-06-01  4:25 Dara Hazeghi
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dara Hazeghi @ 2003-06-01  4:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: timothyprince; +Cc: gcc-bugs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

 > I've been put on the CC: list for all bugs, according to the
 > bugzilla messages.  If this happened for many people, no wonder your 
 > server gets behind.

Really? When Daniel migrated us to bugzilla, everybody in the audit 
trail of a bug got added to the CC: list for that bug, and that 
certainly has increased traffic, but I hope you're not on the CC: list 
for every PR! Note that you can change your bugzilla preferences to 
block such mailings even if you are...

Dara

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/enriched, Size: 540 bytes --]

<fontfamily><param>Courier</param><bigger>> I've been put on the CC:
list for all bugs, according to the 

> bugzilla messages.  If this happened for many people, no wonder your
> server gets behind.


Really? When Daniel migrated us to bugzilla, everybody in the audit
trail of a bug got added to the CC: list for that bug, and that
certainly has increased traffic, but I hope you're not on the CC: list
for every PR! Note that you can change your bugzilla preferences to
block such mailings even if you are...


Dara</bigger></fontfamily>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <486DCCCA-93CC-11D7-A14F-000393681B36@yahoo.com>]
* Re: NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED
@ 2003-06-01  1:01 Dara Hazeghi
  2003-06-02  7:32 ` Ben Elliston
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Dara Hazeghi @ 2003-06-01  1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

--- Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
 >>? One example I'm wondering about is 10403 (Java on mingw32
 > > runtime bug). Thanks,
 >
 > I think whenever I came across something like that, I put the state to
 > confirmed(=new) when the original submitter could reproduce the same
 > problem again with a different version of gcc on his system, AND if 
this
 > was a system of which I suspected that there is none of us bugs people
 > working with. Ideally, we'd just leave these reports as they are and 
leave
 > it to the platform maintainers to confirm. However, since this is not
 > happening, I thought it would be more useful to flush out a couple of
 > reports that were wrong, put some justifiably into confirmed, and a 
few
 > into confirmed though it was really a user error.

I guess I agree with you in principle, I just feel you standards are a 
bit too stringent. Especially for runtime bugs, I'm not certain whether 
it's necessarily fair to ask the submitter to try multiple compiler 
versions, particularly if the failing one is the current release. I 
think I find Joseph's proposal perhaps more practical:

 > You should alse make sure that the bug report seems to contain 
sufficient
 > information for anyone with the right platform to reproduce it (all
 > required sources, compiler options, what is considered to be wrong, 
...).
 > Given that information is present, and that what is described as being
 > wrong does indeed look like a bug, I think treating the bug as 
confirmed on the given
 > version and platform is reasonable.

I think something along these lines will provide the necessary 
information, without asking too much of the reporter... Especially 
since for other types bugs, we tend to have a somewhat lower threshold.

 >
 > Things have changed a little since we're now so many more people 
working
 > on bugzilla, and have a variety of platforms. For example Giovanni 
may be
 > able to reproduce this bug on his windows box.

Perhaps then we should set up a list of platforms, and people who are 
willing to test code on them? As it is, usually I just end up asking 
whoever seems most likely to have such systems, but I'd be reasonably 
confident that among all the "bugs people" and the regular developers 
we cover most of the platforms. Thoughts?

Another question I have is about including the platform of a bug in the 
summary (ie "[powerpc64] blah fails doing foo". Now that Daniel has 
made it possible to edit the host and target fields (thanks again!), it 
seems to me that we should be using those, rather than the bug summary, 
to include the specific platform on which the bug occurred. Also, since 
target triplets have a canonical form, this will root out a number of 
minor inconsistencies (ie ppc vs powerpc), and make it much easier to 
search for specific problems. Any opinions about this? I generally lean 
toward the philosophy of one field, one purpose...

Finally, a question about maintainers and bugs. Is there a consensus as 
to when it is okay to assign a bug to someone, and when it is okay to 
add someone (who's responsible for the relevant portion of the 
compiler) to the cc: list of a bug? Thanks,

Dara

P.S. Apologies for sending a copy of this message to everyone without a 
title. Too much cutting and pasting...


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-02 15:53 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-01  4:21 NEW vs. UNCONFIRMED Dara Hazeghi
2003-06-02 15:53 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-01  4:25 Dara Hazeghi
     [not found] <486DCCCA-93CC-11D7-A14F-000393681B36@yahoo.com>
2003-06-01  1:15 ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-06-01  1:32   ` Andrew Pinski
2003-06-01  1:38     ` Wolfgang Bangerth
2003-06-01  3:56   ` Tim Prince
2003-06-01  1:01 Dara Hazeghi
2003-06-02  7:32 ` Ben Elliston

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).