Don <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #7 from Don <>  2009-07-15 06:46:27 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > You also changed the version to 1.045. I am reverting it back to 2.031 as 
> > this
> > has the most up to date forward reference implementation 
> No, the policy here is that
> - we set the _oldest_ version in which the bug has been witnessed

That turns out to be completely useless, actually. It'd be _so_ much better if
there were only 3 versions: 1.x, 2.x, both.
For one thing, it means that any search for "1.x bugs" becomes invalid every
time there's a new compiler version!
And the exact version number is relevant only when there's a regression. And
that's handled better by a comment, anyway.

> - if a bug exists in both 1.x and 2.x, the 1.x version is set

That used to work well, when the compilers were almost identical. We're now
getting a lot of bugs which are 1.x only.

You're right about it being the policy, but it's actually not a helpful policy
at all. (OTOH, updating the version number to the most recent DMD is *really*
Adding keywords is extremely helpful.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to