From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14128 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2004 18:49:42 -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 14001 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2004 18:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vaxjo.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.75) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 18:49:38 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by vaxjo.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C66DB09; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:49:37 -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 KAA28014; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iAOIna808358; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:49:36 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:39:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Giovanni Bajo Cc: chris jefferson , Mike Stump , Janis Johnson , Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving Message-ID: <20041124104935.A7827@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> <41A3B68A.5020408@cs.york.ac.uk> <0cca01c4d252$7fa138c0$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: <0cca01c4d252$7fa138c0$f503030a@mimas>; from rasky@develer.com on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:22:04PM +0100 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00915.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:22:04PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > As I said, bugmasters already find out the offending patch for most > regressions, so the question here is whether we want to auto-assign them or > not. If people thinks this is a SC decision, then I would like to request an > official SC statement on this. Otherwise, we are waiting for a maintainer to > step in and say that he does not like to have regressions auto-assigned to > him and why. If there is no objection to auto-assignment by anyone who is likely to get bugs auto-assigned to him/her (that is, from a heavy-duty contributor), I think the bugmasters should be free to do what they want without the SC butting in (even though I raised a concern before).