Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

A couple of minutes ago, I wrote the following, triggering some more thoughts:

> I get the feeling that in C++ land, bug fixing rate has really picked up
> since we started to go through GNATS last fall.

So here's two questions:
1/ Is this only my impression, or is this also something that those who 
really fix the bugs that we map feel?

2/ We never seemed to have talked about this: What, you "bug fixers", do 
you really need to fix a bug? I get the impression that reduced testcases 
are helpful, and that certainly having a bug database where you know what 
is and what is not a bug might be too. I also think that the fact that we 
started to mark regressions as such did something very beneficial to the 
quality of releases. 

However, I never really got feedback if this is what you need, or if there
is something else where you always thought "man, if these GNATS people
would just..."?

Let us know!

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/

Re: Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

[Kriang Lerdsuwanakij]

Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> A couple of minutes ago, I wrote the following, triggering some more thoughts:
> 
> 
>>I get the feeling that in C++ land, bug fixing rate has really picked up
>>since we started to go through GNATS last fall.
> 
> 
> So here's two questions:
> 1/ Is this only my impression, or is this also something that those who 
> really fix the bugs that we map feel?

Yes, it's a lot easier to pinpoint the problem.  Several bugs are very
easy to fix but the big size of the testcase obscures the problem.

> 2/ We never seemed to have talked about this: What, you "bug fixers", do 
> you really need to fix a bug? I get the impression that reduced testcases 
> are helpful, and that certainly having a bug database where you know what 
> is and what is not a bug might be too. I also think that the fact that we 
> started to mark regressions as such did something very beneficial to the 
> quality of releases. 

Reducing the testcase and marking the bug (regression? illegal code?) are
the ones I like.  I would have to reduce the provided testcase anyway if
it isn't already done.  Imagine it's hard to go back and forth between
while debugging the compiler if it fails on the 12501th call to a
particular function :).  It also helps prioritize bugs to fix.  Regressions
will be addressed first.

--Kriang

Re: Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

[Eric Christopher]

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 16:00, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> A couple of minutes ago, I wrote the following, triggering some more thoughts:
> 
> > I get the feeling that in C++ land, bug fixing rate has really picked up
> > since we started to go through GNATS last fall.
> 
> So here's two questions:
> 1/ Is this only my impression, or is this also something that those who 
> really fix the bugs that we map feel?
> 

The bug reports that you guys have been giving me has been useful.
Especially when you point to one I hadn't seen in the database.

> 2/ We never seemed to have talked about this: What, you "bug fixers", do 
> you really need to fix a bug? I get the impression that reduced testcases 
> are helpful, and that certainly having a bug database where you know what 
> is and what is not a bug might be too. I also think that the fact that we 
> started to mark regressions as such did something very beneficial to the 
> quality of releases. 

I'm really happy with the bug reports that I get. The one time I was
thinking I needed a smaller testcase one magically appeared.

Thanks for all of the hard work.

-eric

-- 
Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>

Re: Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

[Mark Mitchell]

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 16:00, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
> 
> A couple of minutes ago, I wrote the following, triggering some more thoughts:
> 
> > I get the feeling that in C++ land, bug fixing rate has really picked up
> > since we started to go through GNATS last fall.
> 
> So here's two questions:
> 1/ Is this only my impression, or is this also something that those who 
> really fix the bugs that we map feel?

I believe you are correct.  I singled you out (in your absence) at the
GCC Summit for a thank-you; your classification of bugs has made it much
easier both to fix the bugs and to see which bugs are important.

> 2/ We never seemed to have talked about this: What, you "bug fixers", do 
> you really need to fix a bug? I get the impression that reduced testcases 
> are helpful, and that certainly having a bug database where you know what 
> is and what is not a bug might be too.

Yes.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com

Re: Cooperation between "bug masters" and "bug fixers"

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

> I believe you are correct.  I singled you out (in your absence) at the
> GCC Summit for a thank-you;

I understand that this extends as well to the others working on the bug 
database. They're doing more work than me these days ;-)

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:            bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/