Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS

[mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)]

mec> I'm willing to abide by whatever Eli, the maintainer, decides.
ac> I don't know who the maintainer is, however doco and releng should be 
ac> "on the same page".

Well, then I think you need to decide who the maintainer of PROBLEMS
is and document that in the MAINTAINERS file.  There are no specific
entries for "releng" so I presumed they fell under documentation.

ac> As I stated in my cover note, gdb/1560 for instance is a regression 
ac> since GDB _5.0_.

Okay, then a user of gdb 6.0 is not going to suffer from additional
hurt from gdb/1560 if they upgrade to gdb 6.1.  And you are right, it's
not a regression from 6.0.

ac> Trying to list regressions is of little value.

We have different opinions on this.

When I upgrade a software package, I find the list of regressions from
my current version to be of *great* value.  For each new problem, I have
to ascertain whether it affects my system.  If it affects my system, I
have to figure out how to work around the problem.  If the problems are
too severe, then I know that I am better off not upgrading.

ac> Giving this file meaningful titles (so users don't have to wade through
ac> irrelevances such as gdb/1512) is a first step.

gdb/1512 is a bug in gdb.  Naturally, we can describe it so that most
people will realize that it won't bother them and can just read through
to the next bug.

If you claim that gdb/1512 is irrelevant to every user (and I'm almost
of that opinion myself), and you can persuade other maintainers of that
position, then we can stop testing for it and just PASS those tests.
But right now we consider that behavior of gdb to be a bug that needs
fixing.

Michael C