This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: "Wolfgang Bangerth" <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"Volker Reichelt" <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Cc: "Steven Bosscher" <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,"Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>,"Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,"Nathan Sidwell" <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:05:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
>> OK. But then the RM should also look at the importance of tbe bug,
>> not just the target milestone.
> Our (extensively discussed) policy has been to mark all regressions
> for the next release, and that only the RM should be allowed to slip
> a PR to a later release (as this is a political, not a technical
> decision). I would like to keep to this policy. Otherwise, we would
> all start to assign milestones at our own priority.
Strongly agreed. Steven made me note that this is not stated in our bug
management html page. Volker, would you kindly take care of adding this policy
to the html?