This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- From: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at ACT-Europe dot FR>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,"'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,'Mark Mitchell ' <mark at codesourcery dot com>,'Giovanni Bajo ' <giovannibajo at libero dot it>,'Gabriel Dos Reis ' <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,'Nathan Sidwell ' <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:33:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- References: <4195D82C2DB1D211B9910008C7C9B06F01F37408@lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401120921120.21333-100000@acapulco.ices.utexas.edu>
> 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.
I don't think it is reasonable to have only one person handle these
things: we are already seeing that this is not a viable approach.
I agree that the list of people being able to do these changes should be
limited, as is the number of people having write-approval access to the
tree for various (or global) components, but it should not be just the RM,
this does not scale up (and already no longer does).
Arno