Re: Bug reports for for versions < 5.1.0

[Mike Miller]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 17:45:34 -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 2/26/19 12:42 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> > If it's not clear whether it's been fixed or not, I would re-tag it as
> > 5.1.0 or dev, ask for someone to test it again in the current version,
> > and close if there is no reply after several weeks.
> 
> If you can reproduce it with the current sources, then yes, I'd definitely
> change the version identifier to "dev".
> 
> If it's not clear that a bug has been fixed, when does that typically
> happen?  When the OS is something you don't have?  Or maybe it is due to
> library dependencies?  I'm not sure what to do with the Octave version
> number in the report in that case.

Yeah, many are when the bug is specific to another OS. Sometimes the bug
is very complex or involves software or a desktop environment or
something else that I don't have easy access to.

As an example, I just updated https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?50351 from
4.0.0 to dev and asked the OP whether the bug is still present or
relevant. If there is no response within the next weeks to months, we
should close this as invalid. This bug is highly specific to the Intel
compiler and is against a version of Octave from 3 years ago. If the OP
is no longer engaged I don't see any way for the bug to progress.

As another example, I updated https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55031 from
4.0.0 to dev, but I have nothing to add. It looks to me like it might be
a machine precision issue, or maybe an expected discontinuity. The OP
asserts that there is a problem, but the result is a plot. I honestly
can't tell from looking at a plot whether there is a problem or not.

-- 
mike

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature