"François-Xavier Coudert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When the commit which introduced the regression is known, why not > simply assign the bug to the committer? Surely, people do follow > regularly the bugs that are assigned to them, don't they?
In practice, no, they don't. > In my opinion, all regressions should always be assigned to someone, > at all times. Either to the identified guilty party, or to a volunteer > or maintainer of that field, who is then responsible for identifying > the guilty party, or finding someone who accepts to do it. This sounds > like a reasonable way of making sure some regressions don't get > forgotten, doesn't it? It's a reasonable idea, but overall it would have a negative effect. People tend to ignore PRs that are assigned to somebody else; they assume that person is actually working on them. Conversely, people won't work on a bug simply because it is assigned to them. I think that what Mark suggested originally is going to be the most, perhaps the only, effective approach: a volunteer to actually bug people to get things done, one way or another. It's not an easy job. It essentially means acting as a project manager for the compiler bugs. The project manager job is hard even when you work in the same office as the developers, and thus have some ability to actually force them to do something. It's much harder when dealing with people you've never met, only over e-mail. Ian
