From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-88748-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7162 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2004 15:21:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7155 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2004 15:21:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost3.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.14)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2004 15:21:41 -0000
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 071FAA81C; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:21:41 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mailhost1.tudelft.nl (mailhost1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.15])
	by mailhost3.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 73A84556D; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:21:40 +0100 (MET)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 0201C5899; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:21:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl (lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl [130.161.166.23])
	by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40ABD58E0; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:21:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
	id <Z62W47N7>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:19:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4195D82C2DB1D211B9910008C7C9B06F01F37409@lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl>
From: "S. Bosscher" <S.Bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
To: 'Wolfgang Bangerth ' <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>,
	"'gcc@gcc.gnu.org '" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: 'Gabriel Dos Reis ' <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>,
	'Andrew Pinski ' <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Subject: RE: Classifying bugs
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:21:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00703.txt.bz2

> Since this is not the first time he has not followed our rules, I would
> also like to ask him to be extra-careful in the futue when applying 
> personal judgment rather than technical criteria when changing fields in
> bugzilla.

Why was this policy not discussed on gcc@, or at least announced?
I do not agree with all downgradings, but I disagree even more with
the ease with which some bugmasters assign a target milestone.  If
you want to be so strict about all this, then you should discuss
every milestone with the RM.

Gr.
Steven