search for: pr3214

...ess described by Richard doesn't seem to be very complicated. As mentioned by others, we have commits and tests (and sometimes source files) that explicitly mention bug numbers. I do regularly look up bugs from a decade ago to determine if a test or some code still has relevance or not. If PR3214 can be one of two bugs, it does not only increase lookup time but also add confusion to everyone involved. Cheers,   Johannes > -Tom > > >> It sounds like we don't all agree that the last point is important, but if we can achieve it without any significant additional cost...

...esn't seem to be very complicated. > > > As mentioned by others, we have commits and tests (and sometimes source > files) that explicitly mention bug numbers. I do regularly look up bugs > from a decade ago to determine if a test or some code still has > relevance or not. If PR3214 can be one of two bugs, it does not only > increase lookup time but also add confusion to everyone involved. > > > Cheers, > > Johannes > > > > > -Tom > > > > > >> It sounds like we don't all agree that the last point is important,...

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 11:04, Philip Reames via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +1 to James's take > > I'd prefer simplicity of implementation over perfection here. > If we end up with two different bug numbering systems, that's a problem that we will be paying for for many years. It's worth some investment now to avoid that problem. And it