From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17436 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2004 17:13:28 -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 17427 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 17:13:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 17:13:26 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 3A235C5C3; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:13:25 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS References: <405B1CE3.2070007@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <405B1CE3.2070007@gnu.org> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:16:35 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:16:35 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > This patch gets rid of the meaningless(1) "Regressions since X.X" > titles replacing them with functional section titles: > *** C++ support > *** Stack backtraces > *** Misc > (I think that's all) The file is re-ordered but none of the contents > change. > comments? As we've discussed earlier, some of what are currently listed as regressions since 6.0 should be edited to be more clear. That aside, I don't like the current design. The earlier design had a list of (sometimes fairly trivial) regressions since 6.0, coupled with a much more serious outstanding problem; these two shouldn't be mixed. If we decide that we don't want regressions since 6.0 to be in a separate section, then we should apply the same criteria to everything listed under the header "C++ support" (or whatever), and decide to either only list serious bugs or else list every problem that we know about. Personally, the old division makes more sense to me: a list of all regressions, plus some more serious outstanding issues. Obviously the header "Regressions since 5.3" should be changed, however. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com