From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1139 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 18:34:44 -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 1097 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 18:34:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vaxjo.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.75) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 18:34:40 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by vaxjo.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE15DEFA; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:34:40 -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 KAA03279; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:34:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iANIYc602499; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:34:38 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:01:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Giovanni Bajo Cc: Mark Mitchell , Janis Johnson , mrs@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving Message-ID: <20041123103438.A2256@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> <20041123100316.A399@synopsys.com> <0a1701c4d18a$0ab73f50$f503030a@mimas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <0a1701c4d18a$0ab73f50$f503030a@mimas>; from rasky@develer.com on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:27:08PM +0100 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00838.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:27:08PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > The change I am proposing is to give LESS meaning to the assignment: since > there is no way we can force anybody to do anything, I am proposing that an > assignemnt becomes just a way to mark the person who is supposed to be > looking the bug more closely at any given moment. I'd prefer for assignment to mean that the assigned person has agreed to look at the bug. With your change, we lose the ability to make the distinction: when I see a name in the assignment field, under your system that would give me no information about whether anyone is looking at it. If you attach to the log a note saying that the regression is caused by a given patch (with the name of the patch submitter) all the information is already in the PR. Your proposed change to the assignee field, therefore, adds no information, and in fact removes information (we can already find out which patch caused the bug, but we can no longer tell whether there's a person who has agreed to work on a fix).