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: "Volker Reichelt" <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Cc: <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,<mark at codesourcery dot com>,<gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,<nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:02:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- References: <200401121529.i0CFTesV007177@relay.rwth-aachen.de>
Volker Reichelt wrote:
> Ok. But I'm not sure about the details. We now have:
> Regressions should be explicitly marked as such. The summary line
> should read
> [branches-to-fix regression] rest-of-summary
> where branches-to-fix is the list of maintained branches (separated
> by slashes) that need fixing. In addition the target milestone
> should be set accordingly. A regression should start with severity
> "critical" to bring it to attention. It may be downgraded later if
> a defect is not important enough to justify "critical" severity.
> Is "In addition the target milestone should be set accordingly"
> accurate enough or should we rather write "... the target milestone should be
> set to the next release that needs fixing"? Any other suggestions?
It looks like it's not accurate enough, given this thread. I'm ok with your
> The last sentence could be changed to "It may be downgraded or
> rescheduled to a different target milestone later by the release manager if a
> defect is not important enough to justify "critical" severity."
> Or do we want different permissions for downgrading (e.g. everybody)
> and rescheduling (e.g. RM)?
I propose to have bugmasters decide the severity of the bug (which is supposed
to be the "perceived" severity from an user standpoint), and make "only the
Release Manager or a maintainer of the specific part of GCC affected by the
bug" able to reschedule the milestone.