From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20712 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2006 12:22:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 20675 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jan 2006 12:22:11 -0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060114122211.20674.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/25663] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Trouble parsing nested templated constructor calls In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "steven at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg01356.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-14 12:22 ------- Mark, Re. your comment #5, I think everyone respects your request that only the RM sets priorities. But right now the RM fails to do so. I have also set priorities on a number of bugs that obviously have the wrong priority setting. Some bugs are not relevant at all, e.g. not a primary or secondary platform, or for a language that is not release critical. Other bugs are obvious must-fix bugs, or at least must-analyze, before 4.1 can go out the door. I've adjusted priorities on roughly one dozen bugs in the last week alone when it was obvious that the bug has the wrong priority. If you think that is wrong, you should just go over the list of bugs more often and set the priorities yourself. I am sure you're a very busy man, but if you want everyone to stop touching bug priorities, then you have the responsibility to set them for us, and you will just have to find the time to do so or relax the rules again. In this case, you don't comment at all on a regression that you caused, until Richard escalates the issue and sets the priority higher himself. Richard reported the problem 12 days ago today. Do you think it is strange that people get annoyed with you if you cause regressions and then essentially disappear for 12 days? Had it been someone else instead of you who caused this bug, people would have reverted the patch causing this bug long ago. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25663