From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12893 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:29:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12877 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:29:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:29:49 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ze4P-0000Iz-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:30:33 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZcBc-0008Vz-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:29:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. Message-ID: <20030117192952.GA17549@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3E270973.9020702@redhat.com> <3E2858DC.4030405@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E2858DC.4030405@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 02:26:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > With revisions: > > >There is currently a long thread (Remove all setup_xfail...)'s on > >gdb-patches@. Several proposals, I think, can already be identified at > >this point in the discussion. > > > >- yank the existing xfail PR markings (but not the actual xfails) (they > >apply to old internal Red Hat and HP bug databases and hence are > >meaningless). > > Still stands. > > >- `moving forward' all new xfails, and all modifications to existing > >xfail's should include a bug report (this way, new analyzed vs old > >unanalized xfail's can easily be differentiated). > > Still stands. > > >- GDB have a new closed state `cannotfix'; or a new class `xfail' or > >`notabug' or ...; or even reuse the class `mistaken' that can be used to > >categorize xfail bug reports (not sure which is better here). > > GDB has a new category `external'. External bugs can either be > `suspended' (I guess that implies that the bug is waiting on the > external code to be fixed), or `closed' the external problem has been fixed. Would an external defect relating to GCC 2.95.3, fixed in 3.2, be marked "closed"? This would be the one legitimate case for a failure to refer to a closed bug report? That seems reasonable at first blush. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer