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
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401120921120.21333-100000@acapulco.ices.utexas.edu> you write:
>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.
Shudder.
Okay, tell me that's not true. I misunderstood, right ?
Did I get this right ?
There are PRs getting *closed* that correspond to *actual* problems that
*do not get fixed*, but get classified as *not important*.
I can understand marking a bug as low priority, or postponed until after
the next release, but to close a PR as `not important' ???
Do you even think the person who reported that bug in the first place
will even bother to file a bug-report the next time ???