Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0

Eli Zaretskii
2004-03-18T06:06:53Z

> From: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:48:56 -0800
>
> I think one of the things that is bothering me is that we're
> highlighting new bugs but not highlighting bugs that have been fixed.

Fixed bugs that we want to tell users about should be in NEWS.

> Some of the latter is in NEWS, but NEWS is both at a higher level (it
> doesn't mention specific PR numbers) and it tends to concentrate on
> new features, which isn't quite the same thing.

There's nothing to prevent us from adding fixed bugs to NEWS, I think.

However, if the number of bugs fixed between releases is very large,
it could make sense not to mention them at all. One case in point is
Emacs: its NEWS contains only new and improved features, while the
fixed bugs are not mentioned at all, their number being too huge.

> For GCC releases,
> Gerald Pfeifer (if I'm remembering correctly) goes through the list of
> GCC bugs and provides a table of all of the ones that have been fixed
> in that particular release (breaking them down into categories);
> besides making GCC developers feel good, it can also help users decide
> when to upgrade, because they can look at the list of bugs that have
> been fixed in the categories that they care about and see how
> important those bugs are to them.

I sincerely doubt that the list of GCC fixed bugs helps anyone beyond
GCC developers and people with special interest in compiler
development, as most of them are worded in a way that leaves users
with a ``Huh?'' after-taste.