From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4144 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 15:45:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4137 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 15:45:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.153) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 15:45:55 -0000 Received: from twcny.rr.com (syr-24-24-18-104.twcny.rr.com [24.24.18.104]) by ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4NFjtik018087; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ECE422A.4010106@twcny.rr.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:47:00 -0000 From: Nathanael Nerode User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wolfgang Bangerth CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02101.txt.bz2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: >>Right now, in order to change to CLOSED, you need to edit the bug two times, >>and this is suboptimal. > > > I wasn't even aware of this. Which might or might not indicate that the > process is too complicated. > > Regarding the existence of the two states at all: I have argued previously > that that's unnecessary. Nathanael says that we need them for the > otherwise lack of QA in gcc, but I think that's not correct: every patch > for a bug should come with a testcase, so at least in theory a bug that > has once been fixed cannot reappear because it would show up in the > testsuite. Note that I'm arguing for "VERIFIED", not for "RESOLVED". I agree that the presence of *three* states (RESOLVED, VERIFIED, and CLOSED) is undesirable. The point of VERIFIED is to hold the bugs which are "fixed on mainline, not for 3.3", which can keep getting duplicate submissions for many months. (And we should, if we keep it, make VERIFIED bugs searched by default by users looking to submit a new bug without duplicating an old bug.) RESOLVED serves no separate purpose for GCC. > I get the feeling that this requirement is quite thoroughly handled. If it > is not in some cases, then I think it is an undue burden on the bugzilla > people if they have to maintain two states for _all_ bug reports. It's an > undue burden because it can't be their responsibility to enforce the > testcase rule, but they would be forced to bear the consequences. > > I would also like to posit that quite a number of bugs will then stay > RESOLVED indefinitely. If someone, say, fixes a bug on mn10200 or some > other obscure target, who's going to double-check after a release and put > in into CLOSED? Yup. Well, me, but other than that. :-)