>>>>> Joe Buck writes:
Joe> This implies that you think it is the patch author's job to fix the
Joe> problem. And if the patch were incorrect, you'd have an argument.
Joe> But in this case, it seems that the patch is correct, but it exposes
Joe> a problem elsewhere in the compiler (one of Kenner's famous "latent bugs").
Joe> Andrew's comment suggests that the real bug is elsewhere, and I don't get
Joe> why the author of the above patch is responsible for fixing that other
Joe> breakage. Reverting the patch is an option, but that would re-open
Joe> whatever problems the patch fixed.
The GCC development plan tries to place the responsibility on the
original author, whether or not the bug was in the patch or the patch
exposed a latent bug. If the responsibility is not placed on the patch
author, then effectively no one is responsible, other than the release
manager. This is too large and impractical a burden for the RM, which
effectively means that fixing the bug is left to someone else's motivation
or good graces. The original author may not be able to fix the bug
himself or herself, but should be responsible for finding someone to fix
it.
If anyone has better ideas for distributing the responsibility and
for generating enough responsibility so that the bug or regression does
not languish, please speak up. Hopefully with weekly or bi-monthly
reports, all GCC developers will be more aware of open problems and
developers who caused bugs or exposed latent problems will be encouraged
to fix them, get help fixing them, or find someone to fix them.
David
