| Summary: | change gcc-porting default assignee to bug-wranglers and default CC to gcc-porting@ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Infrastructure | Reporter: | Jakub Moc (RETIRED) <jakub> |
| Component: | Bugzilla | Assignee: | Bugzilla Admins <bugzilla> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | gcc-porting |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Jakub Moc (RETIRED)
2008-03-21 22:21:16 UTC
Default assignee changed. Actually, I would really like it to go to gcc-porting so we could make sure the patch was sane before it was assigned to someone else. All porting bugs should come to us and we can approve it and move it along to the maintainer... If the other members of the gcc-porting team disagree, then just ignore me, but I'd much rather we took a look at the patch before someone goes and patches something incorrectly. Isn't that what the gcc tracker bugs of yours are for? (In reply to comment #3) > Isn't that what the gcc tracker bugs of yours are for? No, that's so we can keep track of where we are at, and if maintainers are slacking. Actually getting a gcc porting patch and/or approving it should be handled by us. Shrug; just revert this... I'm not really after arguing about such stuff. actually, i'd like them to be assigned to the maintainer and blocking the appropriate tracker bug. we've been doing this the last few releases and it seems to be working well.
i usually follow the bugs on the tracker pretty closely, but if the maintainer can fix the bug without us, then bonus. if not, that's where we come in. as long as they're not cheating like using {append,replace}-flags to work around things that should be fixed in the code or gcc itself and marking the bug fixed, then i'm happy.
oh, and i have no problem having gcc-porting in CC btw. default values for CC will be coming in Bugzilla3, so we can make both sides happy then. (In reply to comment #7) > oh, and i have no problem having gcc-porting in CC btw. Sounds good; I'll CC you until the upgrade is finished. (In reply to comment #8) > default values for CC will be coming in Bugzilla3 Yay... :) i'm happy with the way things are and others on gcc-porting have requested we not be cc'd, so unless someone has objections i'll close this. |
