From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3296 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 16:05:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3213 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 16:04:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 16:04:57 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C52B92; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4059C8A6.1020504@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: mec.gnu@mindspring.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 References: <20040317225423.E42474B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <4058E1C6.70605@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.ABeghOON8lIOA0M5TyaJx0WLcjXGFJgPWEkkILMaSMQ@z> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:39:50 -0500 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> >>> NEWS contains a history of GDB, PROBLEMS does not. >>> >>> PROBLEMS is there to identify late breaking screwups and other issues in >>> just _this_ release. > > > Not necessarily. It depends on what purpose we want PROBLEMS to > serve. > > One way of looking at PROBLEMS is as a repository of bugs that the GDB > team already knows about, and that users therefore should not report > as new bugs. Er, we already have a repostory of known bugs, it's called the bug database. Why duplicate the content and tracking effort? > PROBLEMS can also mention work-arounds, so that users > who bump into them can do whatever they need even though the bug isn't > fixed yet. > If viewed like that, it would make sense for PROBLEMS to include all > the bugs that are still not fixed, even if they date back to version > 0.0. Bugs that are solved should indeed be deleted from PROBLEMS. PROBLEMS should draw the users attention to late breaking and immediate issues that will hurt them (gdb doesn't build, this broke going from the previous release). A bug already present in the previous release _isn't_ new news. This is why the PROBLEMS file is the last thing updated (well that and version.in). At present the ANNOUNCEMENT that goes out with a GDB release: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/download/ANNOUNCEMENT contains: - the latest news - the problems in _this_ release Notice how both are lifted straight from the corresponding file, and more importantly, notice how the problems refers the user to the bug database. Listing every single long standing nit in the PROBLEMS file just adds unnecessary noise. If the user is looking for details, they can look in the bug database. > (Btw, if GDB still has bugs known since v0.0, it would say something > quite unflattering about GDB maintenance, and that alone is IMHO a > reason good enough to keep old unsolved bugs on record.) Andrew