This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

> >> OK.  But then the RM should also look at the importance of tbe
> >> bug, not just the target milestone.
> >
> >Our (extensively discussed)
> but undocumented. sorry, i don't follow every discussion. i doubt anyone
> does.  It is a good policy in principle.  In practice it doesn't always
> work.

This is a discussion we had on our bugzilla-masters mailing list.

> Milestones are only meaningful if the bugs actually are important enough
> to somebody to fix it.  As has been pointed out by our RM several times,
> GCC is a volunteer project and he doesn't think pushing volunteers to do
> something would help.  All this policy does at this late stage is make
> the compiler look far worse than it is in reality.

What does that have to do with the number of open PRs we have? Bugzilla is 
not our main advertisement instrument.

The whole point of this is: moving milestones, or closing PRs as not 
important is a _political_ decision, not a technical one. I don't want one 
of our bugzilla people to just go around and do so at will. For this job, 
we have the RM, which is a political position. We can assume that he got 
his position by common consensus, so he's got a political mandate to do 
so. None of us bugmasters has this.


Wolfgang Bangerth              email:  

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]