This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Bugzilla: Version = unspecified vs. trunk?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think we should have a protocol whereby 2.xx.90 bugs get some
> standard treatment en masse that requires that someone retest them
> against the new release and either update to the release version or
> close them. If nobody retests a bug, it gets put into some clear
> state indicating that (perhaps closed but with a special keyword).
I don't think that makes any more sense than saying that's the policy for
a bug that was reported against 2.5. If someone tests against current
trunk before submitting a bug, that's *better* than reporting having only
tested with (what was probably a distributor version of) some older
release; it doesn't make the bug in any greater need of retesting
(although it's a good idea for all bugs to be triaged, whatever version
the bug claims to have been tested with).
A better policy would be to use the "last reconfirmed" field in triage and
say it means the bug was confirmed in trunk as of that date; part of
triage would be verifying a bug in trunk. Then, bugs with older "last
reconfirmed" dates could be periodically reviewed - but that doesn't
depend on what version they were originally reported against.
Presumably your idea is that trunk bugs reflect some transient defect in
the source tree, but I don't think that's the normal case.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com