Volunteer for bug summaries?

[Daniel Berlin]

On 5/22/07, François-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
> > CCing the person who caused the regression is more appropriate.  Assigning
> > bugs to them detracts others from fixing the bug.
>
> We already do that, and in lots of cases it doesn't work. CCing is not
> coercive enough, you only receive a few more mails (and some people
> don't even read their bugzilla mail).
>
> Take PR31095, for example. It's a 4.3 regression on x86 and x86_64
> that is triggered on the GCC testsuite, it has been known for more
> than 2 months, Janis kindly did a reghunt a month ago to attribute it,
> the patch author was added in the CC list. Since then, nothing
> happened.
>
> I'm taking this example because I was remembered about it by a mail on
> the fortran list, but it has nothing specific, there are scores of
> these kind out there. I think assigning regressions to people who
> introduced them is only fair, after all, they are supposed to take
> care of it or find someone else to do it!

On the other side of the fence, I get CC'd on lot of "bugs" in PRE
that turn out to be problems elsewhere, and just happen to be exposed
because PRE has a lot of asserts in it.  Our other optimization passes
are more lenient.   :)

Two of these in the past week, in fact.

I generally assign myself bugs when i'm actually working on a patch,
instead of just looking at it.