From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25697 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2002 03:14:09 -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 25690 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 03:14:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 03:14:09 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB93B6I01417; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:11:10 -0800 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:16:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Gerald Pfeifer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nathan Sidwell Subject: Re: Bug tracking / Release Quality Assurance Message-ID: <6190000.1039400391@localhost> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 --On Saturday, December 07, 2002 03:36:43 PM +0100 Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >>> 2. I suggest that we close PRs that have been in feedback state but >>> not received any response for more than 6 months: >> I'd think 3 or 4 months even. > > There were no responses to this, but 3 or 4 months would be fine with > me as well. > > What should I add to our new section on "Procedures and Policies" at > the end of http://gcc.gnu.org/gnatswrite.html ? Mark? I think 3 months is fine; please add that. Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com