Re: Labelling of regressions in Bugzilla

[Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>]

> On 15 Dec 2021, at 12:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> 
>> On 15.12.21 12:39, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>> 
>>> Iain pointed out a drawback of not having the regression info in the
>>> Summary. Currently it does draw your attention when looking at the
>>> results of a bugzilla search. Andrew noted that bug aliases are
>>> automatically added to the summary, e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94404
>>> shows its alias "(c++core-issues)".
>> Wouldn't it be easier to click on the "[Change Columns]" button at the
>> bottom of the search result page and add the new field to the "Selected
>> Columns"? The known-to-(work/fail) columns are available, i.e. this
>> feature also works with custom fields.
> 
> Yes, I'd be fine with that solution (thanks, for the reminder, I
> should have mentioned that option in my initial mail).
> 
> If you reorder the "known to fail" column so it comes right before the
> Summary column you would get a clear list of regressions shown before
> the rest of the summary (and nothing in that column for
> non-regressions).
> 
> A possible downside is that would show all the branches the regression
> was on, including closed ones. Again, I'd be fine with that, but it's
> a change from the info visible at a glance in the Summary today.

I just tried this with my local search and it line-wraps the list so that it
does not matter too much about the number of branches reported.

However "known to fail” is not currently “regressed for” they have distinct
meanings (both of which are useful IMO).

Iain