[Gaby wants Vincent to explain:]
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
# This is complete non-sense. One doesn't prepare a patch for an invalid
# bug.
[Michael tries to interpret Vincent:]
| I think that what Vincent meant was:
| "One doesn't prepare a patch for a PR marked as INVALID".
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote on 19/06/2005 19:06:13:
> Then let me explain my previous message. Either
>
> (1) Vincent thinks it is an invalid bug, then
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg00818.html
>
> (2) or Vincent thinks it is NOT an invalid bug, then
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg00803.html
>
I don't see a contradiction. All he is trying to say that it is
a valid bug marked as INVALID. His claims that a patch will
be ignored if the PR is marked as INVALID make sense to me.
> Vincent can help himself changing the status of PRs, based on informed
> facts. And in effect, that just happened to that very PR. If the only
> thing that was stopping him from producing a patch was the status of
> the PR, then now that it changed I expect patch from him.
>
I tend to agree with Vincent's view by not with his tone.
More than one PR that I opened (or its duplicate) were closed,
reopened (by me or others), and then closed again without
a serious discussion.
For example, PR 21951. Unfortunately, Bugzilla hides the history of
close / reopen so you can't see where exactly the bug changed
status back to NEW.
It is frustrating to discuss a validity of a PR in the following manner:
Reporter: bug description X
Bug master: not a bug. INVALID.
Reporter: a bug because Y. REOPEN.
Bug master: not a bug because Z. INVALID.
Reported: a bug, here is an example. REOPEN.
Assuming Reporter is "lucky":
Bug master: Well, is guess it is a bug. (Title changed).
Despite being descriptive and friendly, bug masters
frustrate me and other users by being too eager
to close the PR. I would suggest a policy change,
a PR should be closed (as duplicate or as INVALID)
only after discussion was exhausted.
Instead of:
Reporter: bug description X
Bug master: not a bug. INVALID.
Try to do:
Reporter: bug description X
Bug master: I think it is not a bug, because.
Reporter: a bug because Y.
Bug master: I disagree, because Z.
[no reply within 2 days]
Bug master: INVALID
Michael
