From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3535 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 20:03:01 -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 3486 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 20:02:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 20:02:59 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HK2vI06079; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:02:57 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:03:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301172002.h0HK2vI06079@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'. X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 Daniel J writes: > In that case I'd want "broken in all GCC's" to be open rather than > suspended. Does this bother anyone? If "external" is a class, it's okay with me if some of them are "open" and some of them are "suspended". I wish the state was an indicator of who we are waiting for: open -> waiting for gdb investigator analyzed -> waiting for gdb patch-writer external -> waiting for external issue to be fixed suspended -> waiting for some miscellaneous condition feedback -> waiting for original user closed -> not waiting But since we're headed for 'external' as a class rather than a state, this isn't going to happen. Michael C