From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4130 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 18:03:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4119 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 18:03:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vaxjo.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.75) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 18:03:19 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by vaxjo.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80236DEF5; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:03:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23533; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:03:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iANI3HK00905; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:03:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:20:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Giovanni Bajo , Janis Johnson , mrs@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving Message-ID: <20041123100316.A399@synopsys.com> References: <200411230026.iAN0QqeO005220@sirius.codesourcery.com> <884E869E-56B9-43AD-ACDD-0F2A47287087@apple.com> <41A29C79.5070803@codesourcery.com> <20041123170139.GA4463@us.ibm.com> <095801c4d180$19e95e40$f503030a@mimas> <41A37209.2000301@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <41A37209.2000301@codesourcery.com>; from mark@codesourcery.com on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:23:21AM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00833.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:23:21AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > It's not purely for me to say. Making it our policy to auto-assign > regressions would be something of a societal change, and, as such, > should only be done as part of a broader consensus. > Personally, I think this is a reasonable thing to do, and I've in fact > given the bugmasters explict permission to assign bugs to me if the > regression comes from a patch I've committed. Assigning the regression, > however, is only half the problem: the other problem is getting the > assignee to actually fix the problem. In a corporate environment, where programmers are paid to maintain code, an assignment policy means that it is a particular person's job to fix a bug, and that some penalty will be paid if that person does not do his/her job. But we don't have that here; it's a volunteer environment. Under such a circumstance, the only reasonable thing that assignment can mean in the GCC project is that the assignee has agreed to work on a bug fix, and anyone reading the PR can see that it is being worked on. Under these circumstances, I don't think that the bugmasters should assign bugs to people unless there is pre-existing agreement (for example, Mark has agreed to accept bug assignments as described above). After all, we have an alternative: if a patch causes regressions and this isn't promptly fixed, the patch can be reverted. I suggest cc-ing the patch submitter when a regression is traced to a patch, and also suggest that people assign bugs to themselves if they plan to work on a fix, to avoid duplication of work. That also means "unassigning" the bug if other work intrudes, so someone else can pick up the slack.