On 09/28/2012 11:27 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 11:45, Travis Vitek wrote:
Liviu,
Sorry I didn't look until just now, but it appears that I could have
re-opened STDCXX-1066. I only see the 'Reopen Issue' button for STDCXX
issues, but it is most definitely there. Perhaps there is some sort of
permission issue for you?
It's ok, I think it's somewhat cleaner to create a new one and link it
to the old one. Even if clean was not a concern, it was within Stefan's
options to close the incident. I don't know.
Jira issues are ours to decide what to do with, just like stdcxx
code. If there's consensus that the bug should stay open we keep
it open (or reopen it). Likewise, if we all agree to close it we
close it.
FWIW, if we're going to fix the problem noted in STDCXX-1066
(regardless of how) it would probably make sense to change the
resolution of the issue from Won't Fix. Otherwise it could be
confusing.
One other comment: I would suggest choosing subjects for bug
reports that reflect the problem rather than a fix for it or
a rationale for it. For STDCXX-1066 I think something like
"Library mutex objects misaligned on SPARCV8" would better
capture the problem than the current title. (It's also up
to us to rename an issue if we find it more descriptive
than the original.)
Martin
Also, STDCXX-1066 appears to have been a duplicate of STDCXX-1040.
Yep, forgot about it, I am thinking about linking that one, too.
Thanks.
