I put this up on the Wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/FilingIssues
There are few kinks that I'd like us to iron out, including which
version to assign a new issue to when it's not known to exist in
the most recent release (e.g., for 4.2.1, should it be trunk,
4.2.x., or 4.2.1?), and under what conditions should failures in
newly added tests should be considered a regression. Let's discuss.
Martin Sebor wrote:
Here's the process I use for reference. Let me know if you have
suggestions for improvements, otherwise I'd like to put it up
on the Wiki as the recommended process to follow.
1. using the cross-build result pages currently at
http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx/results/builds/
scan result page for an uncharacterized error (build problem,
abnormal exit, unexpected difference in example output)
2. check other versions of the same platforms for the same error
3. check 4.2.0 results for the same error on the closest
available platform
http://people.apache.org/~sebor/stdcxx-4.2.0/results/builds/
4. file an issue for the problem
* if the problem is platform-specific, mention the platform
in the Summary (e.g., [Sun C++ 5.8/Solaris/SPARC])
* if it's a regression from 4.2.0, check the Regression box,
set Affects Version/s to trunk, and schedule for 4.2.1
* otherwise (not a regression), set Affects Version/s to
4.2.0
* include as much detail in Description as possible (use
the {noformat} tag to disable Jira formatting of command
lines, code snippets, and program output)
* set the Severity field as appropriate
* try to asses the Priority of the problem based on the
platform (Primary, Secondary, Best Effort), the Severity
of the problem (signal is usually worse than compilation
error), and the area of the library it affects (an error
in a test due to a compiler bug is of lower priority than
a runtime error pointing to std::string)
* if possible, take a guess at the effort required in fixing
the problem by setting the Original Estimate
Martin
