From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5110 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2014 17:10:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 5100 invoked by uid 89); 12 Mar 2014 17:10:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f176.google.com) (209.85.220.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:10:35 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id lc6so9917974vcb.35 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:10:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rgcAurkaNoX50F/RED5pnbsdkZpVsWrjz1tvOjM/kZ4=; b=NogTFsKztF6Gkd2/IiMQLvEjsE/MVfCJDnY7c2DPqGLxg/DAlmz/tKkqPxBEfsyS0k ikzEtfxNlG+nNWxvT76bl3vPGPkVDmvJfM+0MSH3CRG2X3aLqPOhgpOVhtUjwS9cGBl1 b624jiFGj7kx6AlTzELeDNo+i2FS3SHaNjOICJW6tWl7u/S44eis5hIw2NsLkDS0c/QF Liw3FasahSphv9yAsxnlgaHsTfvmYptodKF7LPpWkFDpPWEaN7zEgL469BPrgdxs1cZE 3iEnXP4fFVNzrAaLnFQJpvS30TuheK7tEpedRNJdePT2BFCkq2Uy5jyYY68V85EQpAfw gU7w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1RfOeo1+R6MIeHC4xMF+LYLekXm+HokGygVkVxcs54bKAjTW4eQnOY9TGEza9j4jitUoAo0TyVJNxx4bC8WPP1GajBs00TuZuHXGV+D1CmxHbJf+3J9xHqEkwDERxXawRwahnIkI8VHnbEaRTJXigjgkEjBornjH8Wp1wjAFqdi3OYjnQ4IeiSIMsuhmj2aQismM5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.247.193 with SMTP id yg1mr2vec.41.1394644232512; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.13.101 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53209273.9090407@redhat.com> References: <53209273.9090407@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cleaning out obsolete bugs in bugzilla From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 03/12/2014 04:41 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >> Hi. I'll conclude from this that there is no disagreement with >> closing such obsolete bugs as WONTFIX is ok. > > In this case I confirmed mainline builds, so it wasn't exactly > the sort of "close just because it's old" thing. But yeah. > Old build bugs are fine with me to close. > > In this case I went with WONTFIX as meaning "Won't fix in > the 6.3 branch." But as I confirmed it works on mainline, > we could go with FIXED too. It's all the same in the end, > but maybe FIXED is kinder to the original reporter? fwiw, I'd hate for these discussions to drag on beyond two emails per bug in the general case. There's just too much else to do, and too many such bugs to deal with. Thus a high order bit here for me is to find a non-disagreeable way to streamline the process (and document it so that it can stay streamlined). "WONTFIX" could come across with an unintended connotation alright, but I have no current data to assign a probability to it happening. At the moment it's just gut feeling, which is why I think there's benefit to something else that doesn't require much, if any, discussion, like OBSOLETE. But I don't have a strong opinion on the ultimate choice. If people have a strong opinion on not inventing anything new, fine by me, let's go with WONTFIX until we have real data that it can be a problem.