[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] LLVM bug lifecycle BoF - triaging

[via lldb-dev]

If the admins guarantee that there is at least one auto-cc (who promises to pay attention) for each component, I think that is sufficient.
I don't agree. That is the status quo and it doesn't work.

No, it's not the status quo, because we've only started soliciting auto-cc subscribers in the past week. We don't know how it's working yet.  The status quo is people willing to subscribe to llvm-bugs, and as for myself, I probably care about 1% of the bugs ever filed.  In the bug BoF, very few people present subscribed to llvm-bugs, with at least one non-subscriber proclaiming he didn't want the extra traffic.

I agree that cfe-bugs, for example, should get copied on all updates but
those updates should be opt-in.

Assuming we go that way, do you think it's reasonable for someone to want to subscribe to cfe-dev but not cfe-bugs? What's the use case for that?

The use case is people who are doing their own projects, not working on the Clang front-end itself.  There's clearly a non-trivial percentage of dev subscribers in that category.  I feel a need to keep up with what's happening but it's extremely rarely that I'll ever be moved to try to fix a Clang bug.
--paulr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20181031/ba7fa376/attachment-0001.html>