stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1072 SPARC V8 mutex alignment requirements
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:51:24 GMT
On 09/28/2012 02:31 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> On 09/28/12 16:21, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 11:55 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> On 09/28/12 13:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> 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.)
>>> I can't do that myself. I looked at that and 1056 and there is no button
>>> for me to reopen, or to edit stuff which is not mine.
>> What you can do with an issue is determined by your Jira role
>> and the Jira permission scheme for the project. Your roles are
>> Committer and PMC member.
>> Both Committers and PMC members (and pretty much all other
>> roles) have the Resolve Issues Permission:
>> Ability to resolve and reopen issues. This includes the ability
>> to set a fix version.
>> So you should be able to reopen it. The top of the STDCXX-1066
>> page should look similar to what's in the attachment screenshot.
>> I.e., you should see a Reopen Issue button near the top, just
>> to the right of the |Comment|Voters|Watch Issue|More Actions|
>> tabs. If that's not what you see, we should figure out why.
>> One reason would be if you were logged in with a different user
>> id, e.g., if you had more than one account. I checked and you
>> do seem to have two accounts. One with your old Rogue Wave
>> address, and another I couldn't tell which address
>> was used on the People admin page (Jira just shows the user
>> name), so I removed and re-added you with the current email
>> address. Let me know if that didn't clear things up.
> Thanks, that did it! Now I see the `Reopen' button on both incidents.


> So, to recap, just to make sure I got it correctly: you want me to
> re-open them, update them, and close the new ones as duplicates. Did I
> get this right?

It was a suggestion, not a request :) I'd probably reopen
STDCXX-1066 and close it as a duplicate of the new one you
created (since you're happy with it). But you should feel
free to do whatever makes the most sense to you.


> Thanks,
> Liviu

View raw message