From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6617 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2004 16:55:09 -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 6609 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2004 16:55:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2004 16:55:08 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1DF2B92; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:55:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40363BEA.7020104@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Close all [most] SPARC PRs? References: <20040218214740.D8E584B367@berman.michael-chastain.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2 >>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:47:40 -0500 (EST) >>> From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) >>> >>> Attach that message in a change from "open" -> "feedback". >>> Wait 30 days. >>> >>> About 80% of cases, nothing happens for 30 days. Then close the PR, >>> with another little note: "I haven't heard anything for 30 days. >>> I am closing the PR. If you have problems with a more recent version >>> of gdb, please file another PR." >>> >>> About 15% of cases, the original submitter writes back sooner and >>> confirms that the original bug is closed. Then close the PR. >>> >>> About 5% of cases, the original submitter says something which indicates >>> that we shouldn't close the PR. >>> >>> Mark K already did a 30-day routine on a bunch of Solaris PR's, >>> and the 30 days ran out, and he closed the PR's. >>> >>> Anyways, that's how I like to do it. > > > I really like this procedure. Blindly closing the PRs should not be > our first choice if we can do better, and what Michael suggests _is_, > IMHO, better. I don't think it should put too much emphasis on this: > I tried your test case (or something similar to your test case) > and it works for me. (doco? :-) Andrew