Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 01:45:13PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Daniel J writes:
> 
> > Would an external defect relating to GCC 2.95.3, fixed in 3.2, be
> > marked "closed"?
> 
> I think not.  I think it would continue to be "suspended".
> 
> My opinion is that we support gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 3.2.1.  "support"
> means that we test with them before releasing gdb, that we pay attention
> to bug reports on those versions, and that we don't automatically tell
> people using that software to upgrade.  E.g. we don't support gcc 2.95.2,
> or gcc 3.0.4.
> 
> It would be great to have a more authoritative document about what
> compilers gdb supports (and what "support" means) than the preceeding
> paragraph, which I basically made up.
> 
> The fact that "gcc 2.95.3" and "gcc 3.2" have different major version
> numbers has something to do with this, but not everything.  I don't
> think we support gcc 1.42 or whatever the last gcc 1.X was.
> 
> Whenever the Head Maintainer says that gcc 2.95.3 is no longer supported
> then I will stop testing with it.  I think that is the proper time to
> close an external defect that is "broken with gcc 2.95.3, works with
> gcc 3.2".

In that case I'd want "broken in all GCC's" to be open rather than
suspended.  Does this bother anyone?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer