From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23661 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:46:45 -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 23651 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:46:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:46:43 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZeKl-0000Os-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:47:27 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZcRy-0003QW-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:46:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. Message-ID: <20030117194646.GA13074@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200301171945.h0HJjD405622@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00318.txt.bz2 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