From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23060 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 09:32:04 -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 23004 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 09:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 09:32:02 -0000 Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4345113787; Fri, 23 May 2003 11:32:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:36:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Giovanni Bajo Cc: Nathanael Nerode , Wolfgang Bangerth , Volker Reichelt , Christian Ehrhardt , ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: your RESOLVED->CLOSED changes In-Reply-To: <3eb901c32106$c561d7b0$c64f2697@bagio> Message-ID: References: <20030523071817.GA17455@doctormoo> <3eb901c32106$c561d7b0$c64f2697@bagio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02065.txt.bz2 On Fri, 23 May 2003, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > The point about flooding the list is that I'm not expecting any RESOLVED > bug to still be "unresolved". So, once the policy had been decided, I > would have probably batch-changed all those bugs into CLOSED state As a side-note: I moved several PRs of mine to RESOLVED, incorrectly assuming this would "close" them. Clearly, this was operator error on my side, but it's a data point that we might consider removing the distinction between RESOLVED and CLOSED. >> I think the verified/closed distinction is quite useful for noting bugs >> which are fixed but not in a released version. (Of course some closed >> bugs are present in 3.3 as of now, but that's an acceptable transition >> state.) Wouldn't that make things more complicated, overall? I think it's perfectly save to add "Fixed on mainline, will be in GCC 3.4" and then close a PR. > Eric brought up the same point. What I cannot understand is for whom this > distinction is useful. Because it's surely not for developers, nor for users > which rarely greps in the bug database before submitting, and not among > closed bugs anyway. Ack. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/