* Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
2004-03-19 0:09 [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2004-03-17 20:15 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-18 17:13 ` PR activity; Was: " Andrew Cagney
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2004-03-17 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: carlton, mec.gnu; +Cc: eliz, gdb-patches
Yes, I too wish there was a list of PR's fixed.
I don't think it's all that helpful to the users. As a user of *gcc*,
I look at their list of PR's fixed, and I say "yeah okay cool", and
then I run my own before+after spin anyways. But as a tester of gdb,
I enjoy looking at my "compare by gdb" tables and seeing all the
FAIL->PASS transititions.
> Of course, it helps that GCC has several people who try to make sure
> that their bug database is as up to date as possible and organized in
> such a way as to make it easy to figure out this information.
Our bug database has several deficiencies. It's hard to make
attachments (bugzilla is much easier). We ask for fields that are
not important, like "severity", and do not ask for information that
is critical, like "what compiler are you using". We need a page that
says "here is the Unix 'script' command, please attach a typescript
with your bug report". And then there's all that nifty milestone
stuff.
> Whereas you're the only person seriously looking at the GDB bug database,
> and you're also focused (perhaps more focused) on regression testing.
Mark K and Andrew C and Daniel J and David C spend a lot of time
in there too.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* PR activity; Was: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
2004-03-19 0:09 [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-17 20:15 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2004-03-18 17:13 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-18 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain, carlton, eliz; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>Whereas you're the only person seriously looking at the GDB bug database,
>>> and you're also focused (perhaps more focused) on regression testing.
>
>
> [snip] spend a lot of time
> in there too.
Here's a count of people ranked by the number of times they have
modified a bug (.*-Changed-By:):
717 cagney
275 chastain
175 drow
82 kettenis
76 ezannoni
72 carlton
46 jimb
26 jjohnstn
15 fedor
15 ciceron
13 muller
12 cgf
10 thorpej
8 kseitz
7 tromey
6 graces
5 jmoore
5 corinna
4 kevinb
2 troth
2 taylor
2 rth
1 venkat
1 mludvig
1 dhoward
I think it gives a pretty good hint as to activity levels.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* PR activity; Was: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
2004-03-18 17:13 ` PR activity; Was: " Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain, carlton, eliz; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>Whereas you're the only person seriously looking at the GDB bug database,
>>> and you're also focused (perhaps more focused) on regression testing.
>
>
> [snip] spend a lot of time
> in there too.
Here's a count of people ranked by the number of times they have
modified a bug (.*-Changed-By:):
717 cagney
275 chastain
175 drow
82 kettenis
76 ezannoni
72 carlton
46 jimb
26 jjohnstn
15 fedor
15 ciceron
13 muller
12 cgf
10 thorpej
8 kseitz
7 tromey
6 graces
5 jmoore
5 corinna
4 kevinb
2 troth
2 taylor
2 rth
1 venkat
1 mludvig
1 dhoward
I think it gives a pretty good hint as to activity levels.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-17 20:15 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-18 17:13 ` PR activity; Was: " Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: carlton, mec.gnu; +Cc: eliz, gdb-patches
Yes, I too wish there was a list of PR's fixed.
I don't think it's all that helpful to the users. As a user of *gcc*,
I look at their list of PR's fixed, and I say "yeah okay cool", and
then I run my own before+after spin anyways. But as a tester of gdb,
I enjoy looking at my "compare by gdb" tables and seeing all the
FAIL->PASS transititions.
> Of course, it helps that GCC has several people who try to make sure
> that their bug database is as up to date as possible and organized in
> such a way as to make it easy to figure out this information.
Our bug database has several deficiencies. It's hard to make
attachments (bugzilla is much easier). We ask for fields that are
not important, like "severity", and do not ask for information that
is critical, like "what compiler are you using". We need a page that
says "here is the Unix 'script' command, please attach a typescript
with your bug report". And then there's all that nifty milestone
stuff.
> Whereas you're the only person seriously looking at the GDB bug database,
> and you're also focused (perhaps more focused) on regression testing.
Mark K and Andrew C and Daniel J and David C spend a lot of time
in there too.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-18 17:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-19 0:09 [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-17 20:15 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-18 17:13 ` PR activity; Was: " Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox