From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26283 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2007 01:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 26270 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2007 01:21:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from us01smtp1.synopsys.com (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.79) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:20:54 +0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D528BDCCF; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA04576; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.11/8.12.3) with ESMTP id lBJ1Kp22016815; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:51 -0800 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id lBJ1Ko6w016813; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:20:50 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:21:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Paul Brook Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Steven Bosscher , hp@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Regression count, and how to keep bugs around forever Message-ID: <20071219012050.GM2908@synopsys.com> References: <571f6b510712181659w64b16ae5ndc32b38de6f5c56c@mail.gmail.com> <200712190111.11959.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712190111.11959.paul@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +0000, Paul Brook wrote: > > So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old > > bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED. Start shooting. > > I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this. But this is pretty much what SUSPENDED means; it means that there's no intent to work on the bug in the near term. > If/when someone does start caring about that particular feature it'll be > impossible for them to distinguish between bugs that have been deliberately > closed (typically because the cure is worse than the disease), and those that > you've closed through apathy. That's an argument for not using WONTFIX. On the other hand, bugs could just be dropped to P5, and people doing queries would exclude that.